paradise dam - lungfish and aquatic ecosystem monitoring · as in previous lungfish surveys,...

Paradise Dam

Lungfish and Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring

2006-2016

Biennial Summary Report 5 and Final Report

Prepared for Burnett Water Pty Ltd

June 2016, Revised October 2017

This report has been prepared by Fisheries Queensland for Burnett Water Pty Ltd.

Please address any enquiries about this report to Burnett Water Pty Ltd.

Level 10 179 Turbot St

PO Box 15536 City East

Brisbane Queensland 4002

Paradise Dam

Lungfish and Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring

2006-2016

Final Report, Prepared for Burnett Water

August 2017

Fisheries Queensland, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Summary

This report describes the results of a 10 year monitoring program commissioned by Burnett Water Pty

Ltd (BWPL) (now a subsidiary of SunWater Ltd) to fulfil the requirements of a variation of conditions of

approval for the Paradise Dam (formerly known as the Burnett River Dam). The conditions of approval

were issued pursuant to section 143 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 by the Australian Government’s Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) currently the

Department of Environment (DoE) on 8 August 2003.

As per the variation of approval, populations of Queensland lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri were

monitored at six sites in the vicinity of the Paradise Dam between AMTD 119 km and AMTD 201 km

on the Burnett River. Two additional sites were established to compare lungfish populations in the

vicinity of the dam with those in other sections of the river, making a total of eight sampling sites.

Lungfish were captured by electrofishing, measured, weighed, individually tagged and returned to the

water at or near the point of capture. Lungfish spawning activity was monitored at seven locations by

sampling eggs to determine the extent and timing of the spawning seasons and to describe suitable

lungfish spawning habitat. A three day roving survey was conducted annually within the waters of

Paradise Dam to search for suitable spawning habitat or lungfish displaying spawning behaviour.

Additional data describing river profiles, habitat in the sampling sites and water quality were also

collected. Data from the study were initially collated and analysed by the authors. To improve

scientific rigour of the report, the raw data were subsequently provided to the Arthur Rylah Institute for

Environmental Research and subject to more detailed independent analyses.

This study confirmed that lungfish remain a common and widespread species in the Burnett River 10

years after the construction of Paradise Dam. A total of 7458 lungfish captures were recorded during

the survey including 5601 individual fish. A total of 1967 lungfish eggs were recorded during the

study. A sub-sample of 140 individuals was examined to determine their sex and maturity status,

including 58 females and 79 males. As in previous lungfish surveys, samples in the current program

were dominated by mature lungfish >700 mm in total length with only three individuals <300mm. Slow

growth rates observed in lungfish tagged and recaptured during the current survey were also

consistent with previous lungfish surveys in the Burnett River and published literature. The condition

of lungfish fluctuated within levels observed during previous surveys in the Burnett River. There were

no obvious consistent trends in condition of lungfish.

A total of 839 individuals were tagged and recaptured during the current program (winter 2006 to

summer 2016). Some lungfish tagged during previous monitoring programs were also recaptured.

Recaptures largely occurred in the same location where the fish were originally tagged. No consistent

movement trends were observed, however there was evidence that some individuals moved between

sites. Nine lungfish tagged in Paradise Dam were subsequently recaptured downstream of the dam

wall. These fish are likely to have moved over the wall during flood events that occurred in the study

period. Alternatively the fish could have used the downstream fishway on Paradise Dam, which

operated sporadically during the survey period. The survey did not yield evidence of a decline in

lungfish populations across the study area. Overall Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) estimates were

comparable with pre-construction lungfish surveys and were confounded by summer flow events

downstream of Paradise Dam. CPUE decreased at the two sites within Paradise Dam after the dam

filled. However, this outcome most likely reflected the difficulty of electrofishing in very deep water

rather than any change in lungfish populations. Likewise, declining CPUE at Claude Wharton Weir

was most likely indicative of lungfish emigrating from the site by ascending a fishway commissioned

during the current survey. Population estimates based on mark and recapture records were possible

at five of the seven sites. These estimates generally supported CPUE analyses, predicting population

declines at Claude Wharton Weir and Gray’s Waterhole, but increasing populations at other locations.

There was limited evidence of recruitment into the adult lungfish population during the study period.

Some sub-adult lungfish were collected during the first four years of the study, indicating that

successful breeding events had occurred at or just prior to the construction of Paradise Dam. The

increasing lungfish population downstream of Paradise Dam probably resulted from a redistribution of

local lungfish populations during a series of flood events that occurred between 2010 and 2015.

These floods led to widespread and repeated overtopping events at weirs and dams within the

Burnett River Catchment, including Paradise Dam, Ned Churchward Weir, Claude Wharton Weir and

Jones Weir.

Lungfish eggs were located during seven of the 10 survey years and at six of the seven egg sampling

sites. The study supported previous reports, which have found that impounded waters rarely provide

suitable spawning habitat for Australian lungfish. Patches of suitable spawning habitat were

occasionally observed within Paradise Dam. However, there was no evidence of successful spawning

events occurring within the dam throughout the study. The majority of viable lungfish eggs were

collected downstream of Paradise Dam and Ned Churchward Weir in shallow water amongst

submerged and emergent aquatic plants beds in late Winter and Spring. These observations were

consistent with a large body of published work on lungfish spawning habitat preferences.

The outcomes of this study and previous lungfish monitoring programs in the Burnett River were used

to review any potential impacts of Paradise Dam on local lungfish populations. Conclusions of this

review can be summarised as follows;

The size and structure of lungfish populations in the vicinity of Paradise Dam and at the reference

sampling sites remained largely stable throughout the 10 year monitoring program.

Lungfish condition fluctuated during the monitoring period, but remained within levels recorded

during previous surveys in the Burnett River.

During the monitoring program some lungfish made movements from Paradise Dam to river

reaches downstream of the dam wall. It is unclear whether these fish moved over the spillway or

utilised the downstream fishway at Paradise Dam. Regardless, the recaptures provide evidence

that some individuals can successfully make such movements without suffering long-term injury

or death.

As previously stated, the impounded waters of Paradise Dam are unlikely to represent suitable

habitat for successful lungfish spawning and recruitment. There was no evidence of successful

spawning events occurring within the dam during the monitoring program.

The longer-term impacts of spillway flow events on lungfish populations at Paradise Dam remain

unresolved. Downstream movements of lungfish recorded during the current study provided an

indication that gradual downstream redistribution of lungfish populations may be occurring at

Paradise Dam. Data collected at other in-stream barriers (Claude Wharton Weir and North Pine

Dam) suggests lungfish condition is likely to deteriorate if they become stranded downstream of

such barriers. This result highlights the need to continue operating the fishways at Paradise Dam.

Table of contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7

2 Survey methods............................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Sampling locations ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Site descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 10

Site 1, Isis (AMTD 64km) ............................................................................................ 10

Site 2, Figtree (AMTD 119km) .................................................................................... 10

Site 3, Paradise Dam (AMTD 122km)......................................................................... 11

Site 4, Kalliwa Hut (AMTD 135km) ............................................................................. 11

Site 5, Mingo Gorge (AMTD 158km)........................................................................... 12

Site 6, Gray’s Waterhole (AMTD 183km) ................................................................... 13

Site 7, Claude Wharton Weir (AMTD 201km) ............................................................. 13

Site 8, Mundubbera (AMTD 242km) ........................................................................... 14

2.3 Sampling Protocols ...................................................................................................................... 15

Lungfish sampling program ......................................................................................... 15

Lungfish habitat and macrophyte monitoring .............................................................. 16

Spawning surveys ....................................................................................................... 16

3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Population structure ..................................................................................................................... 22

Length Frequency ....................................................................................................... 22

Recaptures, movement and growth ............................................................................ 27

Condition factor and sex ratio ..................................................................................... 29

3.3 Population Estimates .................................................................................................................... 31

3.4 Additional analyses and Independent Review of CPUE and Mark/Recapture ............................ 34

3.5 Lungfish habitat and macrophyte monitoring ............................................................................... 35

Site 1 – Downstream reference (Isis).......................................................................... 35

Site 2 – Downstream (Figtree) .................................................................................... 36

Site 3 – Downstream (Paradise Dam) ........................................................................ 37

Site 4 – Within (Kalliwa Hut) ....................................................................................... 37

Site 5 – Within (Mingo Gorge) ..................................................................................... 38

Site 6 – Upstream (Gray’s Waterhole) ........................................................................ 39

Site 7 – Upstream (Claude Wharton Weir) ................................................................. 40

Site 8 – Upstream (Mundubbera)................................................................................ 41

3.6 Spawning surveys ........................................................................................................................ 42

4 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 47

4.1 Estimates of lungfish abundance ................................................................................................. 48

Catch Per Unit Effort ................................................................................................... 48

Population estimates from mark and recapture .......................................................... 52

4.2 Lungfish population structure and spawning success .................................................................. 54

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 55

6 References .................................................................................................................................. 58

7 Water quality measurements .................................................................................................... 59

7.1 Summary of water quality data for 2006 to 2008. ........................................................................ 59

7.2 Summary of water quality data for 2008-2010. ............................................................................ 61




Table of figures

Figure 2.1 – Map of the Burnett River (blue line) indicating the location of the lungfish sampling sites

(white dots). ............................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2.2 – Isis sampling area (orange outline) and habitat transects (blue) ...................................... 10

Figure 2.3 – Figtree sampling area (orange outline) and transect (blue) ............................................. 11

Figure 2.4 – Kalliwa Hut sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue) ..................................... 12

Figure 2.5 – Mingo Gorge sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue) .................................. 12

Figure 2.6 – Gray’s Waterhole sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue) ........................... 13

Figure 2.7 – Claude Wharton Weir sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue) .................... 14

Figure 2.8 – Mundubbera sampling area (orange outline) and transects ............................................. 14

Figure 2.9 – Map of the Burnett River (blue line) indicating the lungfish spawning survey sites (white

dots). ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 2.10 – Using a push net to collect lungfish eggs ....................................................................... 18

Figure 3.1 – CPUE (lungfish/minute electrofishing) by year ................................................................. 19

Figure 3.2 – Length-frequency histograms for each year (2006 to 2016) at all sites ........................... 26

Figure 3.3 – Length/weight relationship for all lungfish (2006 to 2016) where length and weight details

were complete (n=7052). ...................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.4 – Growth rate of recaptured lungfish (2006 to 2016) ........................................................... 28

Figure 3.5 – Condition Factor of all lungfish by Site (2006 to 2016) ..................................................... 29

Figure 3.6 – Population estimates from mark and recapture. Vertical bars indicate standard error. Y

axis scale varies between sites ............................................................................................................. 33

Figure 3.7 – Estimates of population density (lungfish per hectare) based on mark and recapture

records. Note error bars removed ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3.8 – Depth profiles of Site 1 (Isis) ............................................................................................. 36

Figure 3.9 – Depth profiles of Site 2 (Figtree) ....................................................................................... 37

Figure 3.10 – Depth profiles of Site 4 (Kalliwa Hut) .............................................................................. 38

Figure 3.11 – Depth profiles of Site 5 (Mingo Gorge) ........................................................................... 39

Figure 3.12 – Depth profiles of Site 6 (Gray’s Waterhole) .................................................................... 40

Figure 3.13 – Depth profiles of Site 7 (Claude Wharton Weir) ............................................................. 41

Figure 3.14 – Depth profiles of Site 8 (Mundubbera) ............................................................................ 42

Figure 3.15 – Lungfish egg numbers observed by site and season ..................................................... 43

Figure 3.16 – Number of lungfish eggs in relation to macrophyte density ............................................ 46

Figure 3.17 – Lungfish egg numbers observed by depth ..................................................................... 46

Table of tables

Table 2.1 – Summary details of lungfish sampling locations .................................................................. 8

Table 2.2 – Summary details of access points for sampling locations. .................................................. 9

Table 2.3 – Details of lungfish spawning survey sites .......................................................................... 17

Table 3.1 – Catch details by location (2006 to 2016) ........................................................................... 20

Table 3.2 – Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) (2006 to 2016) .................................................................... 21

Table 3.3 – Results of regression analyses of CPUE (2006 to 2016) .................................................. 22

Table 3.4 – Summary statistics for lungfish total length (mm) by site (2006 to 2016) .......................... 23

Table 3.5 – Summary of lungfish recaptures (2006 to 2016) ................................................................ 28

Table 3.6 – Summary statistics for lungfish condition factor by site (2006 to 2016)............................. 29

Table 3.7– Sex and maturity status of lungfish sub-sample ................................................................. 30

Table 3.8. – Summary of lungfish tagged and recaptured in each survey at Isis, Figtree, Gray’s

Waterhole and Claude Wharton Weir sampling sites ........................................................................... 31

Table 3.9– Physical characteristics of Site 1 (Isis) ............................................................................... 35

Table 3.10 – Physical characteristics of Site 2 (Figtree) ....................................................................... 37

Table 3.11– Physical characteristics of Site 4 (Kalliwa Hut) ................................................................. 38

Table 3.12– Physical characteristics of Site 5 (Mingo Gorge) .............................................................. 39

Table 3.13– Physical characteristics of Site 6 (Gray’s Waterhole) ....................................................... 40

Table 3.14 – Physical characteristics of Site 7 (Claude Wharton Weir) ............................................... 41

Table 3.15 – Physical characteristics of Site 8 (Mundubbera).............................................................. 42

Table 3.16 – Summary of lungfish eggs collected at seven sampling sites during spawning seasons

between 2006 and 2016. ...................................................................................................................... 44

Table 4.1 – Requirements of monitoring program ................................................................................ 47

Table 4.2 – Comparison of CPUE at three locations between current study and Brooks and Kind

(2002) .................................................................................................................................................... 51

Paradise Dam Lungfish and Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring 2006-2016. 7

1 Introduction

On 25 January 2002 the Australian Government’s Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH)

currently the Department of the Environment (DoE) approved construction and operation of the

Paradise Dam (formerly known as the Burnett River Dam) at 131.2km Adopted Middle Thread

Distance (AMTD) on the Burnett River.

On 8 August 2003, DEH varied the conditions of the approval pursuant to section 143 of the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). The variation of

approval for Burnett River Dam (EPBC 2001/422) included the following conditions (6-9);

6. Burnett Water Pty Ltd must undertake annual aquatic ecosystem monitoring at or about AMTD

119km, AMTD 201km and at least two sites between these points and provide to the Minister five

biennial summary reports. This 10-year monitoring program will include measurement of the

condition of lungfish and lungfish habitat / macrophytes. Monitoring will commence when the dam

becomes operational.

7. Burnett Water Pty Ltd must conduct a review of the impacts of Burnett River Dam on lungfish at

the conclusion of the 10-year monitoring program in consultation with the Commonwealth

Environment portfolio, to determine whether future monitoring is required.

8. Burnett Water Pty Ltd must make lungfish information and data from research and monitoring

activities freely available for inclusion in State and Commonwealth lungfish recovery programs or

programs relating to water quality in the Burnett River

9. If aquatic ecosystem monitoring required under paragraph 6 or the review required under

paragraph 7 indicates ongoing lungfish population decline at or about AMTD 119km that cannot

be attributed to natural periodic fluctuations, then Burnett Water Pty Ltd will initiate appropriate

recovery actions. The recovery actions cannot be inconsistent with an adopted Commonwealth

Lungfish Recovery Plan.

The current report describes the results of a 10-year lungfish and aquatic ecosystem monitoring

program (2006-2016), carried out at six sites between AMTD 119km and AMTD 201km on the

Burnett River. Two additional monitoring sites were also established at AMTD 64km and AMTD

242km as reference sampling locations.

The monitoring program included;

Surveys of lungfish in winter and summer of each year at each location (20 surveys in total)

Estimates of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) as an index of lungfish abundance

Tagging and measurements of lungfish to describe the structure of populations

(length/frequency), condition factor (CF) and sex ratio

Movement and growth of any lungfish tagged and subsequently recaptured during the

monitoring program

Population estimates based on mark and recapture events

Descriptions of habitat in the sampling sites including river channel profiles, substrate types,

composition of macrophyte (aquatic plant) communities and,

Annual surveys of egg numbers and spawning habitat during the known spawning period of

lungfish


Based on the outcomes of the 10-year monitoring program, this report also provides a review of the

impacts of Paradise Dam on local lungfish populations, as required to fulfil condition 7 in the amended

approval notice for the dam. Finally, this report addresses condition 9, by examining whether results

of the current monitoring program provided any evidence of ongoing lungfish population decline at or

about AMTD 119km that could not be attributed to periodic natural fluctuations.

2 Survey methods

2.1 Sampling locations

Sampling was undertaken in summer and winter each year from 2006-2016 at six sites established in

the vicinity of the Paradise Dam between AMTD 119 km and AMTD 201km on the Burnett River

(Table 2.1, Fig.2.1). Two of the sampling sites were located downstream of the Paradise Dam wall,

two within the impoundment and two upstream of the impoundment (i.e. above Full Supply Level -

FSL). The location and number of sampling sites satisfied condition 6 above. Two additional reference

sites were also established to provide a mechanism for comparing lungfish populations in the vicinity

of the dam with those in other sections of the river (refer Table 2.1). By necessity, the sampling sites

were located in areas with suitable conditions for accessing the river and launching boats. In some

instances, secondary launch sites were established to allow sampling to continue with minimal

interruption during flow events or when water levels were low. Low water levels and flooding restricted

the area of available habitat that could be accessed by boat on some occasions. Summary details of

the site locations and access points are provided in Table 2.2

Table 2.1 – Summary details of lungfish sampling locations

Number Site Name AMTD (km) Relationship to Paradise Dam

1 Isis 64 Downstream reference

2 Figtree 119 Downstream

3 Paradise Dam 122 Downstream

4 Kalliwa Hut 135 Within

5 Mingo Gorge 158 Within

6 Gray’s Waterhole 183 Upstream

7 Claude Wharton Weir 201 Upstream

8 Mundubbera 242 Upstream reference


Figure 2.1 – Map of the Burnett River (blue line) indicating the location of the lungfish sampling sites (white dots).

Table 2.2 – Summary details of access points for sampling locations.

Site Latitude Longitude Access notes

1 24 58 236 152 08 986 Access to southern bank via private properties at the end of Pine Creek Rd

2 25 16 785 151 58 006 Access to southern bank via Cherelly Orchard, alternative access via private properties on northern bank.

3 25 17 203 151 57 623 Access to southern bank via dam site 4 25 21 497 151 52 787 Access via Paradise Dam public boat ramp 5 25 23 618 151 44 161 Access via Mingo Crossing Bridge public boat ramp 6 25 31 797 151 40 501 Access to southern bank at boat ramp on private

property 7 25 37 089 151 35 921 Access to northern bank via SunWater Claude Wharton

Weir downstream access track, alternative access on southern side via public track

8 25 36 793 151 16 207 Access to northern bank at public boat ramp upstream of Jones Weir


2.2 Site descriptions

Site 1, Isis (AMTD 64km)

The Isis sampling site (the downstream reference site) was situated in flowing river reaches

downstream of the Ned Churchward Weir. Flow and river height in this area are influenced by water

releases from the weir. The primary sampling area was accessed via a private property off Pine Creek

Road approximately 10.5 km downstream of the weir. From this point upstream pools and runs were

accessed as far as water levels allowed (refer Figure 2.2). In winter 2007, extremely low water levels

necessitated use of an alternative access point approximately 5km downstream, at the SunWater Don

Beattie Pump Station. A third alternative access point was utilised in summer 2011 due to flood

damage at other locations.

Figure 2.2 – Isis sampling area (orange outline) and habitat transects (blue)

Site 2, Figtree (AMTD 119km)

The Figtree site originally comprised two pools located approximately 3km downstream of the

Paradise Dam. The pools were accessed via separate access points on private property along

Cherelly Orchard Road. Flow and river height in this area are influenced by releases from the

Paradise Dam. The downstream pool was rarely accessible. The available area for sampling was

determined by water levels over large submerged rocks within both pools. In summer 2009/10, a

major flow event blocked vehicular access to this site and delayed sampling. The pool was eventually

accessed by launching further upstream and using elevated flows to access the area by boat. From

2013 onwards, the site was accessed from a private property on the northern bank after floods

caused extensive damage to banks at the original launch location.


Figure 2.3 – Figtree sampling area (orange outline) and transect (blue)

Site 3, Paradise Dam (AMTD 122km)

This site was located in the tail water pool below Paradise Dam. The pool was accessed with

SunWater permission from the dam site. This site was only sampled during the first two surveys. Low

water levels and spillway flow events prevented access to the pool during subsequent surveys. This

site was dropped from the program in 2007. As stated previously, the omission of this site from the

program left 5 sampling sites within the range prescribed by condition 6. This was still sufficient sites

to comply with condition 6.

Site 4, Kalliwa Hut (AMTD 135km)

The Kalliwa Hut site was located within the Paradise Dam impoundment adjacent to the former

Kalliwa Campground. The site was accessed by boating upstream from the Paradise Dam public boat

ramp. Sampling was conducted upstream and downstream from the Kalliwa Hut targeting the

shoreline and submerged vegetation within the impoundment (refer Figure 2.4).


Figure 2.4 – Kalliwa Hut sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue)

Site 5, Mingo Gorge (AMTD 158km)

The Mingo Gorge site was located within the upper reaches of the Paradise Dam impoundment,

approximately 1km upstream of the Mingo Crossing Bridge. The original access points were located

on private property off the Gayndah / Mt Perry Rd or at the camping area. Subsequently, the site was

accessed from the Mingo Crossing Bridge public boat ramp. Sampling effort was concentrated

upstream of the launch site in a deep pool and a series of rocky glides within the gorge area (refer

Figure 2.5). Heavy infestations of floating aquatic weeds prevented access to this area in winter 2007.

In this instance, an alternative sampling location was established at the Mingo Crossing Bridge where

the infestation was less dense.

Figure 2.5 – Mingo Gorge sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue)


Site 6, Gray’s Waterhole (AMTD 183km)

Gray’s Waterhole is a large permanent pool on the Burnett River at Mt Lawless, approximately 19km

downstream of Gayndah. The site was accessed via private property off Gray’s Road downstream of

a railway crossing across the river. Sampling generally occurred throughout the pool and extended a

short distance into a tributary creek (refer Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6 – Gray’s Waterhole sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue)

Site 7, Claude Wharton Weir (AMTD 201km)

This site included the tail water pool of Claude Wharton Weir and an adjacent pool downstream. The

pools became connected during flow events in 2011. Water flow in the area is influenced by releases

from the weir. The original access points were located on the northern bank via tracks off the Burnett

Highway or the southern bank on tracks near the weir wall. An alternative access point was

established through SunWater’ s Claude Wharton downstream access track following flooding in

2011. During the first two years of sampling Claude Wharton Weir did not have an operating fishway.

The fishway has been operating intermittently for the last six years (refer Figure 2.7).


Figure 2.7 – Claude Wharton Weir sampling area (orange outline) and transects (blue)

Site 8, Mundubbera (AMTD 242km)

The Mundubbera site included the impoundment of Jones Weir, flowing river reaches upstream of the

weir and the lower reaches of the Boyne and Auburn Rivers (Figure 2.8). The site was accessed from

the public boat ramp upstream of Jones Weir. Water levels in the weir fluctuate widely, limiting access

to upstream river sections on some occasions. An alternative launch site was established on private

property at the junction of the Burnett and Auburn Rivers to assist with access to these areas. Water

levels in this area were extremely low throughout the first two years of the survey.

Figure 2.8 – Mundubbera sampling area (orange outline) and transects


2.3 Sampling Protocols

Lungfish sampling program

Each of the sites was sampled for one day during winter and one day during summer every year. This

sampling design provided a mechanism for assessment of seasonal variability. Lungfish were

collected by targeted electrofishing using a boat-mounted 7.5 Kva electrofishing unit (Smith Root) and

pulsed D.C. waveforms. The electrofishing team included a skipper to operate the boat and

electrofishing controls and two crew members to collect lungfish using dip nets. Sampling efforts were

concentrated around preferred lungfish habitat such as aquatic vegetation and other instream

structures, particularly those close to the riverbanks. Lungfish were retained on-board and processed

in groups at the end of each fishing session. Electrofishing time (seconds of power on) was recorded

following each session to facilitate subsequent calculations of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE). CPUE

was subsequently expressed in terms of fish/minute and used as an index of lungfish abundance.

Lungfish were examined, measured and tagged in a custom-built vee board mounted on sensor pads

connected to digital livestock scales (Tru-Test). Total length (mm) and weight (nearest 100 g) were

recorded prior to further examination and tagging. An estimate of relative condition or ‘condition factor’

(CF) was subsequently calculated from individual length/weight ratios using the formula

CF=W/Lb*10000 where W= weight (g) and L= total length (mm). The constant ‘b’ was derived from the

slope of a regression line fitted through log transformed length and weight data from all individuals

that were weighed and measured.

Previous studies of lungfish in the Burnett River and fishway assessments have marked lungfish

using various combinations of dart tags, radio tags and passive integrated transponders (PIT tags).

Lungfish in the current monitoring program were examined and scanned for evidence of pre-existing

tags using procedures described fully in Brooks & Kind (2002). Details of any recaptures from these

previous studies were recorded and forwarded to the relevant authors for their records.

Untagged individuals and those bearing only tags used by Brooks & Kind (2002) were marked using

individually numbered 23 mm Eco-line PIT tags. These tags are identical to those used by Berghuis &

Broadfoot (2004) and are compatible with the fixed PIT tag reader systems at Ned Churchward Weir,

Paradise Dam, Claude Wharton Weir and Kirar Weir. Tags were inserted into musculature at the

origin of the dorsal fin using custom built needles mounted into a tag applicator.


A sub-sample of the catch was examined to determine details of sex and maturity status. In instances

where individuals were running ripe, sex was determined by stripping eggs or milt. In all other cases,

details of sex and reproductive status were established by surgical examination procedures described

fully in Brooks & Kind (2002). A ruling by the Animal Ethics Committee in February 2010 required the

monitoring team to cease invasive surgical procedures unless they could be performed by a

registered veterinarian. From that point forward this part of the sampling was restricted to determining

sex of lungfish during the annual breeding season by stripping fish in running ripe condition.

Processed lungfish were returned to the water following examination and tagging procedures. Fishing

sessions continued until all accessible waters in the site were sampled. The length of time required to

successfully gain access to the site and achieve this objective varied and occasionally required that

sampling continue into the evening or extend over two days. Low water levels and flooding

experienced during the surveys restricted access to some sites on some occasions.

Lungfish habitat and macrophyte monitoring

Water quality parameters (including temperature (Tw), pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) were

measured at 1m depth intervals to a maximum depth of 10m at each site. Visibility was estimated

using a secchi disc.

Depth profiles including details of substrate composition and the distribution of submerged vegetation

(macrophytes) were compiled across one or more transects at each site using methods adapted from

Duivenvoorden (1997). During the first two years of the program, transect lines were established

using a marked 100 m tape stretched between the banks. In instances where the river width

exceeded 100 m, marked ropes were attached as necessary. Once transects were established, water

depth, substrate type and details of submerged macrophytes were recorded at 2 m intervals. In

depths ≤ 3 m a marked pole was used to measure depth to the nearest 100 mm. In deeper sections,

depth was estimated using a sounder. Substrate was categorised into rock, silt, sand, gravel or

cobble either visually or by using the pole. No substrate details were recorded in depths exceeding

3m. Macrophyte species present and their approximate density (% cover) were recorded from visual

census or where a sample could be obtained using the pole. From 2008-2016, the transect lines were

retraced using on board GPS navigation equipment, negating the need for marked tapes/ropes.

Spawning surveys

Spawning surveys were undertaken monthly from August to November at 7 sites (Table 2.3, Figure

2.9). Five sampling sites were located in the vicinity of the Paradise Dam, one downstream, three

within and one upstream of the impounded area. Two reference sites were also established to

compare spawning activity in the vicinity of the dam with other sections of the river (Table 2.3). Egg

sampling procedures were based on those described by Brooks (1995) and Brooks & Kind (2002). An

additional three-day roving survey was conducted annually in Paradise Dam to identify any potential

spawning sites and record details of any suitable spawning habitat that may have developed during

the year.

Specifically, eggs were collected at each site using a frame net (800 x 1000 mm) as illustrated in

Figure 2.10. On each occasion, the net was pushed through a variety of habitat types in

approximately 40 x 2 m ‘shots’. Environmental covariates measured prior to each shot include water


depth (mm), substrate type, macrophyte species present, macrophyte height and macrophyte density

(% cover).

Table 2.3 – Details of lungfish spawning survey sites

Site

Number

Name AMTD (km) Relationship to Paradise Dam

1 McEvoy’s 69 Downstream reference

2 Figtree 119 Downstream

3 Kalliwa Hut/ Paradise Dam 135 Within

4 Mingo Crossing 154 Within

5 Yenda Benyenda 183 Within

6 Gayndah 199 Upstream

7 Auburn River junction 252 Upstream reference


Figure 2.9 – Map of the Burnett River (blue line) indicating the lungfish spawning survey sites (white dots).

Figure 2.10 – Using a push net to collect lungfish eggs


3 Results

3.1 General

Twenty electrofishing surveys were undertaken during the project. Site 3 (downstream of the Paradise

Dam spillway) was only accessible during the first two surveys. Low water levels, overtopping events

and dam repair works prevented any further access to this area. Likewise, a rocky pool section of the

Figtree sampling site was only accessible during the first survey event. Sampling in summer 2010,

2011, 2013 and 2015 was interrupted or delayed by significant flow events, which led to overtopping

at Paradise Dam and Ned Churchward Weir. Sampling in Sites 1 and 2 (downstream of these

barriers) was undertaken after the flood peak during the summers of 2010 and 2011 in difficult

circumstances. Sampling at Site 1 in winter 2007 and summer 2011 was moved 1.5 kilometres

downstream of the original site due to a limited access caused by low water levels and flooding

events respectively. The summer 2013 survey was undertaken in late April and early May due to

major flooding, which occurred in January 2013. The 2015 summer survey was also delayed by flow

events and was not finished until early autumn.

A total of 7458 lungfish captures were recorded in the 20 surveys. This total included 5601 individuals

that were tagged but not subsequently recaptured during the survey period. Of the remainder, 699

fish were recaptured once, 115 were recaptured twice, 17 were recaptured three times, 5 were

recaptured 4 times and one fish was recaptured on five occasions. Records from 57 lungfish caught

at Site 3 and 29 fish collected from the small pool at Figtree are included in Table 3.1 & 3.2 below, but

excluded from other data analyses. The overall Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) was 1.36 fish/minute

(electrofishing ‘power on’ time). Details of catch and CPUE for each site during each of the surveys

are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

There was considerable variability in CPUE and the total number of lungfish collected in each sample

day. The highest number of lungfish collected in a single day was 238 fish at Figtree in winter of 2015.

No lungfish were caught in a sample day on three separate occasions at locations all within Paradise

Dam.

Figure 3.1 – CPUE (lungfish/minute electrofishing) by year


Table 3.1 – Catch details by location (2006 to 2016)

# Sampling was conducted 1.5 kilometres downstream of the original site due to a lack of access to the original site

* No sampling at this site due to a lack of access

Site Wint 2006

Sum 2007

Wint 2007

Sum 2008

Wint 2008

Sum 2009

Wint 2009

Sum 2010

Wint 2010

Sum 2011

Wint 2011

Sum 2012

Wint 2012

Sum 2013

Wint 2013

Sum 2014

Wint 2014

Sum 2015

Wint 2015

Sum 2016

Total

1 Isis 92 84 82# 89 115 92 108 68 163 24# 61 70 93 87 100 112 114 82 177 61 1874

2 Figtree 148 135 153 99 143 95 117 79 121 72 114 60 139 115 107 171 154 167 238 133 2560

3 Paradise Dam

39 18 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 57

4 Kalliwa Hut 3 16 22 8 5 8 5 1 4 2 1 1 6 3 3 0 1 3 4 0 96

5 Mingo Gorge

18 104 92 29 74 18 15 29 20 12 13 11 57 0 0 9 8 1 19 0 529

6 Gray’s W’hole

49 31 59 43 18 20 46 19 36 22 5 31 24 8 1 17 37 22 13 15 516

7 Claude Wharton Weir

39 93 82 110 68 75 62 71 80 53 14 90 71 11 6 13 25 41 16 57 1077

8 Mundubbera 9 13 33 30 35 45 22 30 35 17 14 49 44 10 39 50 105 48 104 17 749

Total 397 494 523 410 458 354 375 299 459 202 222 312 436 234 256 373 444 367 572 283 7458


Table 3.2 – Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) (2006 to 2016)

# Sampling was conducted 1.5 kilometres downstream of the original site due to a lack of access to the original site

* No sampling at this site due to a lack of access

Site Wint 06

Sum 07

Wint 07

Sum 08

Wint 08

Sum 09

Wint 09

Sum 10

Wint 10

Sum 11

Wint 11

Sum 12

Wint 12

Sum 13

Wint 13

Sum 14

Wint 14

Sum 15

Wint 15

Sum 16

CPUE 2006-

16

1 Isis 3.04 3.03 1.75#

1.11 1.69 2.69 2.80 1.02 2.27 0.72#

1.38 1.13 2.07 1.74 1.62 1.44 1.73 0.83 3.00 0.74 1.79

2 Figtree 3.27 4.92 4.69 4.02 4.27 3.80 3.99 1.37 4.06 2.04 3.41 1.52 2.95 1.76 1.7 2.87 3.33 2.78 3.81 1.88 3.01

3 Paradise Dam

2.98 1.98 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2.48

4 Kalliwa Hut 0.06 0.48 0.50 0.20 0.14 0.24 0.16 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.2 0.09 0.12 0 0.06 0.09 0.13 0 0.13

5 Mingo Gorge

0.84 1.67 2.06 0.54 1.48 0.33 0.27 0.49 0.3 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.97 0 0 0.15 0.22 0.03 0.31 0 0.51

6 Gray’s W’hole

2.75 0.69 1.72 0.87 0.35 0.45 1.13 0.35 0.74 0.56 0.12 0.49 0.7 0.28 0.04 0.43 1.01 0.49 0.33 0.40 0.69

7 Claude Wharton Weir

1.28 2.39 2.19 2.50 1.75 3.23 2.38 1.67 2.51 0.99 0.35 1.65 1.88 0.54 0.28 0.71 1.45 1.80 0.65 1.51 1.59

8 Mundubbera 0.27 0.42 0.95 0.54 1.03 0.66 0.47 1.07 0.77 0.3 0.27 0.36 0.78 0.17 0.68 0.88 1.32 0.67 1.40 0.30 0.67

Total 1.36


CPUE was generally highest in the early years of the program, when the Burnett Catchment was

experiencing ongoing drought. Sampling locations within the dam (Site 4, Kalliwa and Site 5, Mingo),

were still flowing reaches in early stages of the survey, but were progressively inundated as the dam

filled. Regression analyses (by Generalized Linear Models), and using CPUE as the response variate

confirmed that CPUE varied between sites and between years (Table 3.3). A seasonal effect was also

evident at all the sites with higher catch rates observed during winter surveys than summer (Table

3.3). However, there was no evidence of a significant pattern of change in CPUE over time within the

individual sites (Figure 3.1, Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 – Results of regression analyses of CPUE (2006 to 2016)

d.f. m.s. v.r. F prob

Year 10 1.84 4.53 <0.001 Site 6 19.61 48.34 <0.001

Season 1 2.66 6.56 0.014 Year*Site 57 0.41 1.02 0.476

Year*Season 8 0.24 0.58 0.786 Site*Season 6 0.79 1.95 0.092

Residual 48 0.41 Total 136 1.39

3.2 Population structure

Length Frequency

The total length (TL) of lungfish varied from 170-1390mm (Table 3.4). This compares well with data

from the Paradise Dam baseline survey where Kind et. al. (2005) reported a length range of 148-

1395mm. Brooks and Kind (2002) reported a size range of 345-1420mm in samples collected

between 1997 and 2000. Mean TL after ten years of sampling was 985 ± 157 mm, compared to

946mm reported by Kind et. al. (2005) and 906mm reported by Brooks and Kind (2002). Length-

frequency histograms using data from all sites for each year are presented in Figure 3.2. Samples

were dominated by adult fish with only four fish <300mm and 122 fish <600mm. This means that

approximately 98% of all individuals collected during the surveys are likely to be sexually mature

adults. Length-frequency histograms provide some evidence of an increase in the number of

individuals in the size range of 500-700mm over the first four years of sampling and a decrease in the

last six years of sampling (Fig.3.2). The age curve presented by Brooks and Kind (2002) predicts that

these fish would be approximately 7-12 years old and may indicate evidence of successful breeding

and recruitment events that occurred at the time of or prior to the construction of Paradise Dam.

Complete length and weight data were available from 7052 individuals. The length/weight relationship

for these lungfish collected is presented in Figure 3.3.


Table 3.4 – Summary statistics for lungfish total length (mm) by site (2006 to 2016)

Site No. Site Length range (mm)

Mean length (mm)

S.D.

1 Isis 240-1360 990 163

2 Figtree 170-1375 972 154

3 Paradise Dam 770-1278 1077 115

4 Kalliwa Hut 770-1275 1013 122

5 Mingo Gorge 640-1310 998 142

6 Gray’s Waterhole 750-1390 1090 126

7 Claude Wharton Weir 410-1330 926 167

8 Mundubbera 270-1330 1012 133


Figure 3.2 – Length-frequency histograms for each year (2006 to 2016) at all sites

Figure 3.3 – Length/weight relationship for all lungfish (2006 to 2016) where length and weight details were complete (n=7052).


Recaptures, movement and growth

There were 1011 recapture events where lungfish were tagged and subsequently recaptured during

the current study. Nine of these events involved a fish being tagged, released and then recaptured

later in the same day. Some lungfish that had already been tagged in previous studies (e.g. Brooks

and Kind 2002, Kind et. al. 2005, DEEDI 2012 a,b) were also recaptured during the current study.

These records were collated but are not further analysed in the current report.

Of 6438 individuals tagged during the study, 5601 (87%) were not subsequently recaptured. The

remainder were recaptured between one and five times. The recapture rates varied widely at

individual sampling sites between 2.6% at Mingo Gorge (Site 5) and 22.2% at Figtree (Site 2) (Table

3.5). Excluding instances where fish were tagged and recaptured on the same day, ~3% of recaptures

indicated movement >1km. All other recaptures occurred close to or at the same location where the

fish had originally been tagged. One fish tagged downstream of Ned Churchward Weir was

subsequently recaptured 170km upstream in Jones Weir at Mundubbera. To achieve this movement

the fish would have needed to traverse Ned Churchward Weir, Paradise Dam, Claude Wharton Weir

and Jones Weir. Alternatively, it may have been physically relocated.

Two fish tagged downstream of Paradise Dam (at Figtree, Site 2) were recaptured in the upper

reaches of the dam at Mingo Gorge raising the possibility they utilised the upstream fishway at the

dam. However, further investigation of these records revealed that the fish were part of a group of 15

lungfish physically relocated from Figtree and released into Paradise Dam by the former Fisheries

Queensland Fishway Team. The fish were fitted with telemetry devices and released into the dam to

investigate operation of the downstream fishway, and whether they would try and return to their home

range downstream of the dam (see DEEDI 2012 a,b).

Nine fish tagged in Paradise Dam were subsequently recaptured downstream of the dam at Figtree

(Site 2). These fish were tagged between August 2007 and August 2009 and recaptured in a period

spanning August 2011 to March 2016. The fish may have moved downstream by successfully utilising

the downstream fishway at Paradise Dam. This fishway operated from February 2009 to December

2010 before being damaged by floodwaters. Following repairs, the fishway resumed operation in

February 2015. Alternatively, the fish may have moved over the spillway of Paradise Dam during a

series of overtopping events that occurred during the study.

Four fish tagged downstream of Claude Wharton Weir (Site 7) were subsequently recaptured

upstream of Jones Weir (Site 8), a distance of ~41km. Upstream movement over Jones Weir can only

have occurred during overtopping events as the fishway at the weir is inoperative. The fish most likely

ascended Claude Wharton Weir by successfully using the fishway on that weir.

Two recaptures revealed upstream movements (~18km) from Gray’s Waterhole (Site 6) to the base of

Claude Wharton Weir (Site 7). Another recapture highlighted a different fish moving from Claude

Wharton Weir downstream into Gray’s Waterhole. The remaining recaptures highlighted relatively

short movements (<5km) generally within individual sampling locations. Mean growth rate from the

recapture data was 8.75mm per year (Figure 3.4). This is consistent with slow growth observed in

previous lungfish monitoring programs (see Brooks and Kind 2002).


Table 3.5 – Summary of lungfish recaptures (2006 to 2016)

Site No. Site Recaptures Recapture rate (%)

Mean growth (mm/year)

Mean time at liberty (days)

1 Isis 164 9.2 9.09 1098

2 Figtree 569 22.2 8.4 931

3 Paradise Dam 7 12.3 29 205

4 Kalliwa Hut 3 3.1 28.7 1443

5 Mingo Gorge 14 2.6 3.1 504

6 Gray’s Waterhole 56 10.8 4.4 749

7 Claude Wharton Weir 110 9.9 8.14 786

8 Mundubbera 79 10.7 11.98 1090

Total 1002 13.6 8.75 940

Figure 3.4 – Growth rate of recaptured lungfish (2006 to 2016)


Condition factor and sex ratio

A malfunction in the digital scale system meant that no weight data were gathered during the summer

07/08 survey. Condition factor (CF) estimates for individual fish based on length/weight ratios

described earlier varied from 0.0455 to 0.2011 (Table 3.6). Mean CF for the eight sampling sites

varied from 0.0878 at Claude Wharton Weir to 0.1108 at Kalliwa (Figure 3.5).

Table 3.6 – Summary statistics for lungfish condition factor by site (2006 to 2016)

Site No. Site Number Condition factor range

Mean condition factor

S.D.

1 Isis 1786 0.0476-0.2011 0.1007 0.0133

2 Figtree 2465 0.0644-0.1922 0.1046 0.0130

3 Paradise Dam 57 0.0863-0.1565 0.1049 0.0133

4 Kalliwa Hut 87 0.0815-0.1797 0.1108 0.0172

5 Mingo Gorge 502 0.0552-0.1589 0.0994 0.0134

6 Gray’s W’hole 473 0.0667-0.1765 0.1046 0.0132

7 Claude Wharton Weir 960 0.0455-0.1534 0.0878 0.0154

8 Mundubbera 716 0.0514-0.1546 0.0990 0.0123

Figure 3.5 – Mean Condition Factor of all lungfish by Site (2006 to 2016)

Condition factor provides an index of wellbeing and can be indicative of relative food availability or

density of conspecifics in different sections of the habitat. Mean condition factors in this study (0.088-

0.111) compared well with values presented in Brooks and Kind (2002), who reported mean condition

of 0.101 in a sample of 2361 lungfish collected from 1997-2000. Condition factor at Claude Wharton


Weir (Site 7) was consistently lower than other locations, but improved following commissioning of the

fishway on the weir in 2009 (Fig. 3.5).

Assessment of sex ratio in lungfish populations was included in the current study as an alternative

indicator of changes that may be occurring in local lungfish populations. However, in 2010 an Animal

Ethics Committee ruling determined that invasive procedures to examine lungfish gonads should only

be conducted by a registered veterinarian. Following this decision, sex could only be determined

when fish in running ripe condition were collected. (Running ripe means that lungfish eggs or sperm

were clearly visible during measuring procedures).

A total of 264 fish including 63 females and 198 males were examined to determine their sex and

maturity status. (Three fish were not sexed). Details of recorded sex and maturity status are

presented in Table 3.7

Table 3.7– Sex and maturity status of lungfish sub-sample

Number Length range(mm)

Mature males 194 696-1318

Mature females 52 740-1260

Immature females 7 630-780

First spawning females 4 660-719

Males (maturity uncertain) 4 635-740

Sex undetermined 3 660-755

Total 264


3.3 Population Estimates

Mark and recapture records provided an opportunity to estimate lungfish population size at some sites

for comparison with trends in CPUE. Because all sections of the river were not sampled equally, no

attempt was made to estimate the size of the entire population in the survey area. Sufficient data were

available to attempt population estimates using a basic model at Isis, Figtree, Gray’s Waterhole and

Claude Wharton Weir. Table 3.8 provides a summary of lungfish tagged and recaptured at these

sites.

Table 3.8. – Summary of lungfish tagged and recaptured in each survey at Isis, Figtree, Gray’s

Waterhole and Claude Wharton Weir sampling sites

Survey Isis (Site 1) Figtree (Site 2) Gray’s W’hole (Site 6) Claude Wharton Weir

(Site 7)

Tagged Recapture Tagged Recapture Tagged Recapture Tagged Recapture

1 92 0 118 0 49 0 39 0

2 81 3 117 16 28 3 89 4

3 82 0 125 17 52 7 74 8

4 87 2 94 6 40 3 106 5

5 115 0 109 34 18 0 62 6

6 89 5 76 19 13 7 69 6

7 102 6 84 33 42 4 57 5

8 64 4 64 16 17 2 56 15

9 152 11 93 28 26 10 73 7

10 23 1 61 11 19 3 47 6

11 53 8 94 20 4 1 12 2

12 60 10 51 9 31 0 83 7

13 78 15 105 36 21 3 60 11

14 79 8 98 17 8 0 8 3

15 86 14 80 27 0 1 6 0

16 97 15 133 39 15 2 12 1

17 103 11 107 47 32 5 17 8

18 70 12 113 57 18 4 36 5

19 146 31 146 93 13 0 13 3

20 52 9 88 45 14 1 50 7

Insufficient recapture data were available to attempt similar analyses at the other locations.


The population estimates were (initially) calculated using the Chapman variation of the Lincoln-

Peterson mark-and-recapture method as follows;

N=((M+1)(C+1))/(R+1)-1,

Variance of N=((M+1)(C+1)(M-R)(C-R))/((R+1)(R+1)(R+2)),

Standard error= √(Variance of N),

Where,

N = population estimate

M = number of lungfish tagged from previous sample/s

C = total number of lungfish caught including recaptures in current sample

R = number of lungfish recaptures in current sample

The method assumes the population is closed (i.e. minimal immigration or emigration occurs), all

lungfish are equally likely to be captured in each sampling event, capture and tagging do not affect

catchability or, each sample is random and tags are not lost between sampling events.

Population estimates are presented in Figure 3.6 for the duration of the study. However, the reliability

of the estimates improved over time as the number of recapture events built up. Estimates at all four

locations were considered to be generally acceptable from survey 6 onwards (summer 2009).

However, the estimates for Claude Wharton varied widely and had higher standard error throughout

the survey. The estimated number of lungfish in the sampling site at Isis (approximately 10 000

individuals) was considerably higher than in locations further upstream.


Figure 3.6 – Population estimates from mark and recapture. Vertical bars indicate standard error. Y axis scale varies between sites


The population estimates for Isis (downstream of Ned Churchward Weir) remained relatively stable at

around 10 000 individuals from summer 2009 onwards apart from one survey in winter 2008 when a

large sample was collected (115 fish) with no recaptures. Likewise the summer 2011 survey yielded

23 fish with only one recapture, which increased the population estimate and the level of error (Fig.

3.6). At Figtree (downstream of Paradise Dam), population estimates indicated a gradual increase

over time, particularly following the 2010 flood when the estimate moved from approximately 3000 fish

to around 5000. After this period levels fluctuated but remained relatively stable at the higher level

(Fig.3.6). Standard error estimates for this location were smaller than at other sites and relatively

consistent throughout the survey. Population estimates at Gray’s waterhole were relatively stable at

approximately 2000 individuals apart from two surveys (Summer 2012, Winter 2015) when the

estimates and error were higher. Population estimates at Claude Wharton Weir were variable and had

consistently higher levels of error than the other locations. There were several potential confounding

factors at this site, which may have influenced the outcomes. These factors including flood effects, the

location of the site (at the dam wall) and operation of the fishway are examined in the discussion

section.

3.4 Additional analyses and Independent Review of CPUE and Mark/Recapture

The monitoring program used boat-mounted electrofishing to sample lungfish populations and Catch

Per Unit Effort (CPUE) expressed in terms of fish / minute of electrofishing as the key index of

lungfish abundance. Because lungfish were tagged before release, subsequent recapture records

allowed for estimates of population size to be calculated at some of the sampling sites. These capture

and analysis techniques are widely utilised in freshwater fisheries management to monitor population

changes in fish stocks. However, there are several factors that can influence catchability in

electrofishing surveys, which in turn may confound the relationship between CPUE and fish

abundance. Likewise, population estimates generated from mark and recapture are underpinned by

key assumptions, which should be considered when analysing and interpreting results of

mark/recapture studies.

To improve the voracity of initial analyses presented in sections 3.1 to 3.3 above, raw data from the

lungfish surveys were sent to experienced biometricians at the Arthur Rylah Insitute for Environmental

Research (ARI) and subject to independent analyses. Terms of Reference for the review included;

Conducting exploratory analyses of the data set to elucidate the survey design, highlight any

outliers in the data and consider potential correlation between environmental covariates in the

survey

Repeating the analysis of trends in CPUE using data standardised against environmental

covariates rather than the raw CPUE data

Revising population estimates from the mark/recapture data using techniques appropriate to

minimise potential confounding effects from violations of the mark/recapture assumptions.

Results from this analyses were provided to Sunwater separately and are considered in the

discussion and conclusion sections of this report.


3.5 Lungfish habitat and macrophyte monitoring

River depth profiles, sediment types, macrophyte species present, water quality parameters and

physical site characteristics are provided for each site below. These measurements represent a ‘snap

shot’ description of habitat conditions within the sites at the time of lungfish sampling. Data is

presented graphically for the last two years and first years of monitoring to demonstrate changes in

river depth profiles over the 10 years of monitoring. Flooding events in 2013, 2011 and 2010

significantly changed the depth profiles and habitat of most sites.

Site 1 – Downstream reference (Isis)

Habitat in this site comprises a series of shallow pools and glides. Depth profiles increase gradually

from the southern bank to a maximum of around 3 metres. The average depth and average width

remained consistent throughout the first seven years of monitoring. However, major flooding in 2013

significantly changed the river depth profiles (Figure 3.8). Large amounts of sand were deposited

which reduced the average and maximum depths (Table 3.9). The height of the exposed sand banks

on the southern bank deposited from the 2011 flow events were reduced by the 2013 flood. The

northern bank has a steeper overall profile compared to the southern bank and is characterized by

overhanging riparian vegetation and submerged woody debris. The substrate is dominated by coarse

river sand, with a top layer of fine silt and occasional rocky outcrops. Macrophyte species and density

has been significantly reduced since the major flow events. No macrophytes were recorded along the

transects post 2013 floods. A small patch of Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana) was the only macrophyte

recorded along the transects in 2012. Prior to the flow events the southern river margin was

dominated by Water Lilies (Nymphoides sp.), Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Water Primrose

(Ludwigia peploides) and Water Couch (Paspalum sp.). Patches of Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana)

also occurred in the open river channel at depths between 75-1850mm. The northern bank is

generally steep and supports far less substrate-rooted macrophytes. Other plant species recorded

during monitoring included Hymenachne sp, Foxtail (Ceratophyllum demersum), Ferny Azolla (Azolla

pinnata) and various filamentous algae species. The density of aquatic plants and the plant

community in this area fluctuates seasonally and in relation to flow conditions.

Table 3.9– Physical characteristics of Site 1 (Isis)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth

(m)

3.6 4.6 3.5 4.3 4.2 3.8 3.1 3.17 3.3

Mean depth

(m)

1.71 19.26 13.51 2.16 2.18 2.26 1.60 1.19 1.22

Mean width

(m)

52 56 51.5 59.5 60 55 55.5 51 52


Figure 3.8 – Depth profiles of Site 1 (Isis)

Site 2 – Downstream (Figtree)

Habitat in this site comprises shallow pools connected by a short riffle/run sequence. Depth profiles

highlight that the entire area is shallow (Figure 3.9). Mean depth barely exceeds 1 metre and the

maximum depth recorded in the transect analysis was under 2.5 metres (Table 3.10). The transects

were moved, from the lower pool near the Figtree Gauging Station in 2006/07 and 2007/08 to the

upper large pool for subsequent surveys, because of access problems associated with the lower pool.

The average depth and average width increased slightly following the flow events in summer 2010

and 2013. The 2013 flood event scoured out sediment on the southern river bank margin at the

bottom of the pool and prevented access to the site from the southern bank. Access to the site is now

obtained from the northern bank via a private property. The upper pool’s southern and northern banks

exhibit a considerable amount of overhanging riparian vegetation. The dominant substrate at this site

is coarse river sand, overlaid with a layer of fine silt along the banks. Submerged and emergent rocks

are also a feature of the survey area and rock has only been recorded along the transect lines since

the scouring of the bottom layer in 2010 and 2013. No macrophytes were recorded along the transect

lines in 2013, 2011 and 2010. Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana), Curly Pondweed (Potamogeton

crispus) and Water Hyssop (Bacopa monniera) were recorded along the transect line in 2012, but

these macrophytes were scoured in the 2013 flood. A similar suite of macrophytes were again

recorded in 2014 with the addition of Water Milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.), and again removed by flooding

prior to the 2015 sampling during which only a small patch of sparse Ribbonweed was recorded.

Before the big flow events the site was heavily vegetated and dominated by Water Lilies (Nymphoides

sp.) along the river margins, particularly the northern bank. Extensive mixed patches of Ribbonweed,

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and filamentous algae also occurred across the river in depths from 150-

1900mm. Other species observed in the area included Foxtail (Ceratophyllum demersum), Ferny

Azolla (Azolla pinnata) and Para Grass (Urochloa mutica).


Table 3.10 – Physical characteristics of Site 2 (Figtree)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth

(m)

2.35 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.95 2

Mean depth

(m)

1.19 0.94 0.95 1.42 1.46 1.57 1.46 0.93 0.96

Mean width

(m)

41 99 99 111 119 109 125 121 119

Figure 3.9 – Depth profiles of Site 2 (Figtree)

Site 3 – Downstream (Paradise Dam)

This site was only sampled during the first year of monitoring. Few lungfish were caught at this site

and due to ongoing access problems the decision was made to not utilise this site on a regular basis

and therefore no habitat data was recorded for this site.

Site 4 – Within (Kalliwa Hut)

This site is within the Paradise Dam impoundment and depth fluctuates with inflows and releases

from the dam. The average width of the sampling area has increased from approximately 240 metres

to over 530 metres and the average depth has increased from 6 metres to 18 metres over the 10

years of monitoring (Table 3.11 and Figure 3.10). Depth profiles demonstrate rapidly increasing depth

to a maximum thus far of approximately 35 metres in the mid-channel (Figure 3.10). Both banks are

characterised by large inundated trees and patches of other submerged vegetation, often extending

more than 100m from the bank. The vegetation is in various states of decay reflecting variable water

levels in the dam over time. Occasional shallow bays and steep rock bars have been formed by

inundation of sections above the crest of the former river bank. Substrate along the river margins is

predominantly coarse sand and silt, however substrate types could not be determined at most points

due to depth. Apart from flooded patches of terrestrial grass, no submerged aquatic plants were

recorded along the transect lines in the first six years of monitoring. A small patch of Water Hyssop

(Bacopa monniera) was recorded on the transects in 2011 and again in 2014. Water Milfoil


(Myriophyllum sp.), Water Hyssop (Bacopa monniera) and Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana) were

recorded along the transects in 2012. There were no macrophytes recorded along the transects in

2013. Water Hyssop and sparse patches of short (10mm) Ribbonweed were observed during roving

surveys, with more extensive beds observed in one shallow bay prior to the 2013 flooding events. The

noxious floating plant, Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) and Ferny Azolla (Azolla pinnata) has been

observed during all years of monitoring except 2013.

Table 3.11– Physical characteristics of Site 4 (Kalliwa Hut)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth

(m)

13 28.8 30.5 33.3 33.4 34.7 31.8 28.6 33.1

Mean depth

(m)

6.16 14.1 12.89 16.69 16.08 16.71 17.94 14.76 13.74

Mean width

(m)

241 421 485.5 525 533.5 510 535.5 406.5 532.5

Figure 3.10 – Depth profiles of Site 4 (Kalliwa Hut)

Site 5 – Within (Mingo Gorge)

Mingo Gorge is located in the upper reaches of the Paradise Dam impoundment and is subject to

variable water levels with inflows. The site has changed during the ten years of monitoring due to the

filling of Paradise Dam. The average depth has increased from approximately 4 metres to 12 metres

and the average width of the site has also increased from 70 metres to 240 metres (Table 3.12). The

site has changed from a series of rocky pools, glides and riffles to a large permanent water body. The

southern bank has remained steep due to the gorge, but now has increased to over 10 m deep within

a few metres of the bank and is comprised of flooded riparian vegetation (Figure 3.11). The northern

bank now has a gentle slope for the first 130 metres and is comprised of flooded vegetation and

submerged and semi-submerged riparian vegetation which is it varying stages of decay. The survey

site has had varying levels of Salvinia (Salvinia molesta) infestations which have not been recorded

along the transect lines in the last six years of monitoring. Apart from filamentous algae growing along

the margins, transect sampling only detected submerged aquatic plants during the 2014 monitoring,

when some very sparse Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana), Water Hyssop (Bacopa monniera) and algae


were recorded on the northern bank. Small patches of Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana), Water Hyssop

(Bacopa monniera) and Water Lilies (Nymphoides sp.) were observed growing on sandy patches

between the rocks in the first two years of monitoring and sparsely along the northern bank edges in

the first six years of monitoring. Substrate in the site is heavily dominated by rock, particularly in the

upper reaches of the gorge area which has become submerged in recent years. The substrate on the

northern bank consists mainly of soil that has become submerged.

Table 3.12– Physical characteristics of Site 5 (Mingo Gorge)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth

(m)

5.22 19.5 21.9 24.5 25.6 25.6 23.6 19.2 24.8

Mean

depth (m)

2.07 6.93 9.51 11.52 12.74 12.79 10.57 5.87 9.14

Mean

width (m)

53 218 230.5 249 252 249 236 212 249.5

Figure 3.11 – Depth profiles of Site 5 (Mingo Gorge)

Site 6 – Upstream (Gray’s Waterhole)

Habitat in this location is almost entirely a single permanent deep pool reaching depths up to 13

metres. The average depth and average width of this site remained consistent throughout the first

seven years of monitoring. Flooding events in summer 2013 scoured the southern bank and

increased the maximum and average depth (Table 3.13). The large sand deposits of the 2011 flow

events were also removed by the 2013 flood. The profile of the southern bank has also changed to a

steeper drop off that reaches a depth of over 5 metres within 2 metres of the bank (Figure 3.12). Both

northern and southern banks are steep and heavily lined with overhanging riparian vegetation. There

are occasional patches of submerged woody debris and some large submerged rock bars. The

survey area also includes a relatively shallow tributary stream at the upstream extremity of the site.

This tributary is heavily laden with silt. The only submerged macrophytes recorded during transect

sampling at this site were rootlets of trees (mostly Callistemon sp.) growing along the river banks.

Some small patches of Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana) and Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) were

observed in the upper reaches of the pool. Some patches of Para Grass (Urochloa mutica) also occur


in areas where the bank profile slopes more gently. Substrate in the site is a combination of sand and

rocks, although substrate type could not be determined at the majority of the transect points due to

the depth of the pool.

Table 3.13– Physical characteristics of Site 6 (Gray’s Waterhole)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth

(m)

8.5 9.8 9.8 8.9 10 10.1 12.8 12.6 12.7

Mean

depth (m)

2.84 3.36 3.29 4.46 4.46 5.71 6.09 4.32 3.84

Mean

width (m)

96 94 94 97 95.5 95 102.5 103 104.5

Figure 3.12 – Depth profiles of Site 6 (Gray’s Waterhole)

Site 7 – Upstream (Claude Wharton Weir)

This site comprises a series of shallow pool, glide and riffle sections influenced by operation of the

Claude Wharton Weir and flooding events. Depth profile analysis highlights the pool-glide-riffle

sequence, with one transect in a considerably more shallow section than the other (Figure 3.13).

While some overhanging riparian vegetation is present, the banks have been degraded by recent

flooding events. The 2011 flow events scoured out the pools and connected the two pools directly

below the Claude Wharton Weir. The 2013 flood event deposited large amounts of sand in the

downstream section of the site which changed the depth profiles further. The deposited sand reduced

the average width and overall size of the sampling site (Table 3.14). There are patches of Para Grass

(Urochloa mutica) in cleared edges along both banks. Some submerged woody debris is present on

one transect and is sparsely distributed throughout the remainder of the site. Para Grass (Urochloa

mutica) and Slender Knotweed (Persicaria decipiens) were the only macrophyte species detected on

the transect lines, although small patches of Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana), filamentous algae and

other species have been observed in the riffle zones. Substrate varies from gravel / rock in the riffle

areas to sand and gravel in the glides and pools. Heavy silt loads were observed in slow flowing

sections, resulting in the sites typical turbid water.


Table 3.14 – Physical characteristics of Site 7 (Claude Wharton Weir)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth

(m)

3.1 3 2.95 3.3 5 5.1 4.8 3.7 4.4

Mean

depth (m)

1.2 1.58 1.38 1.50 2.55 2.95 2.39 1.06 1.32

Mean

width (m)

60 57.5 57.5 59.5 82 82 44.33 66 68

Figure 3.13 – Depth profiles of Site 7 (Claude Wharton Weir)

Site 8 – Upstream (Mundubbera)

This site is predominantly weir pool habitat with some runs and glides in the upper reaches. Lower

reaches of the Boyne River have glide/riffle sequences. Depth profiles highlight the broad and shallow

nature of the weir pool, with depth averaging approximately 4 metres despite average channel width

of up to 148 metres (Figure 3.14). Average depth and average channel width slightly increased during

2012 to 2014 after the 2011 and 2013 floods (Table 3.15). The maximum depth also increased by

almost 4 metres between the 2006/7 and 2013/14 surveys, reflecting slight scouring from the recent

flow events and filling of the weir pool. The depth profiles demonstrate that there were no significant

changes to the river profiles from the 2013 flood (Figure 3.14), but rather varying water levels.

Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana), Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and Curly Pondweed (Potamogeton

crispus) were recorded along the transect lines in 2014 and 2015. There were extensive water lily

beds in shallow sections of the weir pool during much of the sampling. Para Grass (Urochloa mutica)

is also widespread in the lower reaches of the pool. Mixed beds of Ribbonweed (Vallisneria nana),

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and filamentous algae were frequently observed in upper reaches of the

site and at confluences of the river and tributary streams. The pool has a considerable amount of

inundated trees and other submerged woody debris. Substrate in the site is dominated by sand,

frequently topped by heavy layers of silt.


Table 3.15 – Physical characteristics of Site 8 (Mundubbera)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Max depth (m)

3.3 5 6.15 6.26 8.45 7.8 8.2 8.34 8.2

Mean depth (m)

1.67 2.57 2.59 3.79 4.15 4.34 4.34 2.94 2.66

Mean width (m)

103 124.5 131.5 145.5 145.5 144 147.5 141 148

Figure 3.14 – Depth profiles of Site 8 (Mundubbera)

3.6 Spawning surveys

Lungfish eggs were located in each of the first four years of spawning surveys between August and

November. No lungfish eggs were collected in the 2010, 2011 or 2015 spawning surveys. Eggs were

collected in 2012, 2013 and 2014. During the survey period, some evidence of spawning activity was

confirmed at six of the seven sites (Table 3.16, Figure 3.15). No eggs were collected from Spawning

Site 3 (Kalliwa Hut/Paradise Dam boat ramp) within the impoundment. This site was shifted closer to

the wall (near the boat ramp) when access to the original site was blocked during 2008 due to rising

water levels. A total of 1967 lungfish eggs were collected from 11320 push net shots. Lungfish egg(s)

were present in 372 (3.29%) of all push net shots. A total of 655 eggs were collected in 2006, 115 in

2007, 508 in 2008, 74 in 2009, 0 in 2010, 0 in 2011, 311 in 2012, 3 in 2013, 301 in 2014 and none in

2015.


Figure 3.15 – Lungfish egg numbers observed by site and season

In total, 662 eggs (33.6%) have been either infertile or dead. The proportion of live eggs varied

between years, from a high of 82% in 2014 to a low of 31% in 2007. Viable lungfish eggs were

collected at three of the seven designated sampling sites in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012 and 2014, two

sites during 2009 and a single site in 2013. As previously reported, fish in running ripe condition have

been collected during adult lungfish monitoring at Gray’s Waterhole (Site 6), Figtree (Site 2), Isis (Site

1), Mundubbera (Site 8) and Kalliwa (Site 4), confirming spawning activity independently of the egg

sampling. Approximately 250 running ripe condition lungfish were collected during adult lungfish

monitoring, providing further evidence of spawning activity despite no eggs being collected for some

of those years.


Table 3.16 – Summary of lungfish eggs collected at seven sampling sites during spawning seasons between 2006 and 2016.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Live Dead Total Live Dead Total Live Dead Total Live Dead Total Total Total Live Dead Total Live Dead Total Live Dead Total Total

1.

McEvoy’s

162 144 306 14 66 80 235 189 424 49 22 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 881

2. Figtree 46 10 56 0 0 0 63 9 72 3 0 3 0 0 108 88 196 0 0 0 37 10 47 0 373

3. Kalliwa

Hut

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4. Mingo

Crossing

0 0 0 4 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 10 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98

5. Yenda

Benyenda

249 44 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 293

6.

Gayndah

0 0 0 18 4 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 13 47 0 69

7. Auburn

River

Junction

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 26 5 31 2 1 0 177 30 207 0 253

Total 457 198 655 36 79 115 302 206 508 52 22 74 0 0 209 103 311 2 1 3 248 53 301 0 1967


Approximately 45% of all lungfish eggs in the surveys were collected from the downstream reference

site (Spawning Site 1), in reaches below Ned Churchward Weir. However, the proportion of live eggs

at this site varied greatly from 52% in 2006 to 17.5% in 2007, improving slightly to 55% in 2008 and

further to 69% in 2009. The initial decrease in proportion of live eggs coincided with a noticeable

decrease in habitat quality as a result of poor quality water being released from Ned Churchward

Weir. This improved slightly with increased water releases from Ned Churchward Weir in 2008. The

proportion of live eggs in 2009 are not truly indicative of the quality of the spawning habitat during that

season as no eggs were found until an increase in releases flooded the emergent vegetation where

subsequently all the eggs were found. No eggs have been recorded at this site since. This was to be

expected due to the absence of suitable habitat. Similarly, 46 viable eggs (82%) were located in

reaches downstream of the Paradise Dam (Spawning Site 2) in 2006, none in 2007, 63 (87%) in

2008, only 3 (100%) in 2009, 108 (55%) in 2012 and 37 (79%) in 2014.

Approximately 14.9% (293 eggs) of the entire sample (1967 eggs in ten years) were collected from

Yenda Benyenda (Spawning Site 5), during the 2006 survey. At that stage, the site was not inundated

and resembled a flowing river reach. Again, all of these eggs were collected during 2006 and no

further eggs have been located at this site since the area was inundated by inflows to the dam. No

lungfish eggs or evidence of spawning activity had been recorded at Kalliwa Hut/Paradise Dam Boat

Ramp (Spawning Site 3), within the Paradise Dam impoundment, either by push net sampling or more

extensive roving surveys until 2015. A few small patches of macrophytes were observed in minor

tributaries flowing into the dam between 2006 and 2008 and some sparse patches of macrophytes

were beginning to establish in late 2009. Extensive patches of Water Hyssop (Bacopa monniera)

were observed fringing the water’s edge in various bays throughout Paradise Dam in the 2012 roving

survey. During the 2014 and 2015 spawning seasons macrophyte beds dominated by Red

Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum verrucosum) were observed, but no spawning was recorded in these

despite four running ripe fish being captured during the winter 2015 lungfish survey. These fish were

captured around a single clump of Para grass (Brachiaria mutica) growing from a submerged tree

stump in 2.0 m of water. No similar habitat was located during the roving survey.

Viable eggs were located at Mingo Crossing (Spawning Site 4) in the upper reaches of the Paradise

Dam during September 2007, but again no spawning activity was observed at this site until 2012

when complex beds of macrophytes established. These beds comprised of Red Watermilfoil

(Myriophyllum verrucosum), Ribbon weed (Vallisneria gigantea), Curly pond weed (Potamogeton

crispus), Water Primrose (Ludwigia peploides) and Water Hyssop (Bacopa monniera) on the fringes.

During 2012, 85 eggs were collected at this site with 75 (88%) of these eggs viable. The majority of

eggs at this site were found at depths less then 400mm.

Lungfish spawning behaviour has been consistent with previous descriptions provided by Brooks

(1995) and Brooks & Kind (2002). Lungfish spawning has occurred at temperatures between 17.7 and

30.50C and lungfish eggs were located at depths ranging from 20 to 1350mm (Figure 3.17).

Approximately 86% of all eggs were located in depths less than 500mm and more than 99% of all

lungfish eggs were collected from shots where macrophyte density exceeded 50% (Figure 3.16).+


Figure 3.16 – Number of lungfish eggs in relation to macrophyte density

Figure 3.17 – Lungfish egg numbers observed by depth

A total of 398 push net shots were made through habitat where macrophyte density exceeded 50%

and lungfish eggs were present. These samples yielded 99% of all eggs collected in the survey. In

most of these samples, the quadrat formed by the push net shot contained a mixed plant community.

Ribbonweed (Vallisneria gigantea) was present in 69% of samples where eggs were found and

macrophyte density > 50%. Other macrophyte species including Water Primrose (Ludwigia

peploides), Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and filamentous algae were also commonly associated with

successful sample shots. Other macrophyte species associated with egg laying sites included Water

Couch (Paspalum sp.), Curly pond weed (Potamogeton crispus), Red Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum

verrucosum), Slender Knotweed (Persicaria decipiens), Foxtail (Ceratophyllum demersum) and Water

Hyssop (Bacopa monniera). Only a small proportion of eggs were located amongst the rootlets of

terrestrial grasses protruding into the water.


4 Discussion

This report described results from a monitoring program required to fulfil revised conditions of

approval for the Paradise Dam under the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The approval included the following conditions;

6. Burnett Water Pty Ltd must undertake annual aquatic ecosystem monitoring at or about AMTD

119km, AMTD 201km and at least two sites between these points and provide to the minister five

biennial summary reports. This 10-year monitoring program will include measurement of the

condition of lungfish and lungfish habitat / macrophytes. Monitoring will commence when the dam

becomes operational.

7. Burnett Water Pty Ltd must conduct a review of the impacts of Burnett river Dam on lungfish at

the conclusion of the 10-year monitoring program in consultation with the Commonwealth

Environment portfolio, to determine whether future monitoring is required

8. Burnett Water Pty Ltd must make lungfish information and data from research and monitoring

activities freely available for inclusion in Sate and Commonwealth lungfish recovery programs or

programs relating to water quality in the Burnett River

9. If aquatic ecosystem monitoring required under paragraph 6 or the review required under

paragraph 7 indicates ongoing lungfish population decline at or about AMTD 119km that cannot

be attributed to natural periodic fluctuations, then Burnett Water Pty Ltd will initiate appropriate

recovery actions. The recovery actions cannot be inconsistent with an adopted Commonwealth

Lungfish Recovery Plan.

The key design requirements for the monitoring program are presented in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 – Requirements of monitoring program

Requirement Outcome

Undertake a 10 year monitoring program

(Condition 6)

Monitoring was undertaken twice annually from

2006-2016

Monitoring to occur between AMTD 119km and

201km and at least two sites between these

points (Condition 6)

Monitoring occurred twice annually at seven

locations between AMTD 64km and AMTD

242km. One additional location was dropped

from the program due to difficulties with access.

Lungfish spawning activity was assessed

annually at 11 locations between AMTD 68km

and AMTD 252km including a roving survey

within Paradise Dam.

Monitoring to include measurement of lungfish

condition, lungfish habitat and macrophytes

(Condition 6)

Monitoring comprised sampling of adult lungfish

(including tagging, measuring & weighing),

assessment of habitat, water quality and

sampling of lungfish eggs

Monitoring to commence when the dam

becomes operational (Condition 6)

Paradise Dam was completed in November

2005. Monitoring commenced in February 2006


Table 4.1 demonstrates that the monitoring program clearly fulfilled the minimum design requirements

of approval condition 6. .

The primary purposes of the monitoring program were to determine;

whether there is evidence of ongoing declines in lungfish populations at or about AMTD

119km (downstream of Paradise Dam), which cannot be attributed to periodic natural

fluctuations (and therefore is any further action required under Condition 9)

whether Paradise Dam is likely to be impacting on local lungfish populations (as required

by approval Condition 7)

To assess whether there is evidence of ongoing declines in lungfish populations at or about AMTD

119km, three key questions will be addressed in subsequent sections of the discussion. These are;

1. Did CPUE indices or population estimates from mark/recapture data provide evidence of

ongoing population decline during the monitoring program?

2. Is there evidence of change in the structure of lungfish populations?

3. Is there any evidence of an ongoing decline in spawning activity (i.e. the number of

lungfish eggs and/or mortality rate of eggs) during the monitoring program?

4.1 Estimates of lungfish abundance

Catch Per Unit Effort

The monitoring program used boat-mounted electrofishing to sample lungfish populations and Catch

Per Unit Effort (CPUE) expressed in terms of fish / minute of electrofishing as the key index of

lungfish abundance. Because lungfish were tagged before release, subsequent recapture records

allowed for estimates of population size to be calculated at five of the sampling sites. These capture

and analysis techniques are widely utilised in freshwater fisheries management to monitor population

changes in fish stocks. However, there are several factors that can influence catchability in

electrofishing surveys, which in turn may confound the relationship between CPUE and fish

abundance. Likewise, population estimates generated from mark and recapture are underpinned by

key assumptions, which should be considered when interpreting results of mark/recapture studies.

All the samples collected in the current monitoring program were collected from the same river

reaches, using the same electrofishing equipment and a three-person crew. Sampling was only

conducted in daylight hours and a sample was collected in summer and winter at each site each year

with some variability in timing due to flow events. To this extent, the sampling error was controlled as

far as possible. However, the results need to be considered in the context of other factors, which may

have confounded the CPUE estimates. These factors are considered individually in the following

sections.

Environmental variability.

During the first three years of the program, the entire Burnett Catchment was subject to ongoing

drought. Throughout this period sampling locations within the dam resembled pre-dam conditions,

with relatively shallow water and some inflow. Low water levels in the dam also meant that the

downstream fishway remained inoperable until February 2009. During this period no lungfish could

have moved from locations upstream of the dam to locations downstream of the dam.


As the study progressed, Paradise Dam filled and reached full capacity in March 2010. Progressive

inundation of the two sampling locations within the dam (Mingo and Kalliwa) significantly altered the

physical nature of the habitat at these sites. At Kalliwa Hut, the width of the river increased from

approximately 200m in 2007 to over 500m in 2015. More significantly, during the same period depth

increased from 15m to over 30m. The same trend was evident in the upper reaches of the dam at

Mingo where depth increased from 5m to 25m as the dam progressively filled.

In December 2010 widespread rain in the Burnett Catchment culminated in a major flood event. The

Burnett River at Bundaberg reached its highest flood peak since 1942. Two years later, in January

2013 the remnants of Tropical Cyclone Oswald caused widespread and severe flooding throughout

the Burnett River Catchment. On 29 January 2013, the Burnett River at Bundaberg peaked at a

record high level (9.53m). These two major floods were followed by minor flooding again in 2015.

Successive flood events in the period from 2010-2015 resulted in frequent overtopping events at

Jones Weir, Claude Wharton Weir, Paradise Dam and Ned Churchward Weir. A separate study

conducted during this period (DEEDI 2012a,b) documented large numbers of fish, including lungfish

moving downstream over the spillway of Paradise Dam during the 2010 flow events. This observation

is consistent with recapture data from the current program where nine lungfish tagged in the dam

were recaptured downstream. Presumably, lungfish moved over the other barriers during flow events

as well, resulting in some redistribution of lungfish populations in the river.

The filling of Paradise Dam and flow events that occurred during the program confounded CPUE

estimates at some locations, most notably those situated within Paradise Dam. The flow events

disrupted the sampling program, causing delays and preventing access to normal boat launching

points on some occasions. Summer samples in 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015 were all delayed beyond

February, with the 2013 survey continuing into May. In 2010 and 2011, summer surveys downstream

of Paradise Dam and Ned Churchward Weir were conducted in very difficult circumstances, with

strong flow continuing in the river and flood debris creating navigation hazards for the boat. More

significantly, the floods caused widespread and significant physical damage to the riparian zone and

instream fish habitat at all the sampling locations.

In sampling sites located within Paradise Dam, (Mingo and Kalliwa Hut), CPUE declined rapidly as

the dam filled. By 2010 when the dam reached full capacity, boat-mounted electrofishing was

essentially ineffective as a sampling technique at those locations. Only 28 lungfish were captured in

12 surveys days at Kalliwa Hut after the dam reached full capacity. All of these fish were captured in

shallow water along the perimeter of the dam. The sampling location upstream of Mingo Crossing

filled more slowly and reasonable numbers of lungfish were collected in the upper reaches of that

location until 2012. However, only 38 lungfish were collected in the last 8 surveys conducted at

Mingo, including 15 in one day. Many of these fish were captured in upper reaches of the sampling

site where depths were <5m. From these results we suggest that boat-mounted electrofishing is not

an effective sampling technique for sampling lungfish in deep sections of Paradise Dam and the

samples collected at Mingo and Kalliwa after the dam filled are not indicative of the size of the

lungfish population in the dam. Boat-mounted electrofishing during daylight hours was the only

sampling technique used to collect lungfish in this monitoring program. No samples were collected

during the night, when more lungfish would possibly have been more actively feeding in shallow areas

around the perimeter of the dam. We suggest that this technique be considered if any future

monitoring of lungfish populations occurs in Paradise Dam. A compromise survey design may be to

target sampling in the upper reaches of the dam rather than the deepest sections.


In a previous study by Brooks and Kind (2002), gill nets were used in combination with electrofishing.

However, their results confirmed that nets yield far fewer lungfish than electrofishing and require

significant sampling time to deploy and retrieve. The use of nets to collect lungfish also raises

concerns regarding animal welfare as they often remove large numbers of scales exposing patches of

skin to damage and infection. On the basis of results provided by Brooks and Kind (2002) and water

quality data recorded in the current study, we recommend that deep water netting should not be

considered as an alternative lungfish sampling technique in Paradise Dam. Low oxygen levels

observed at depths >6m suggest that there would be unacceptable risks of lungfish mortalities once

fish started to struggle in nets set at these depths. We are unable to recommend a humane sampling

technique that would provide reliable ongoing estimates of lungfish population size within deeper

sections of Paradise Dam.

At all other locations in the study, boat-mounted electrofishing provided a reliable method of safely

and quickly collecting samples of adult lungfish. Independent analyses of the data demonstrated that

environmental variability confounded CPUE estimates to some extent, particularly the flood events

from 2010-2015. Analysis of standardised CPUE data confirmed this result at the Figtree sampling

site where elevated summer flows reduced catchability of lungfish and had a statistically significant

effect on CPUE estimates.

Fishing efficiency

As mentioned previously, the same electrofishing equipment and electrofishing team structure (one

skipper, two net operators) was used throughout the survey. However two different boats were used

and there was some turnover of personnel across the length of the survey period. The original

outboard powered electrofishing boat was replaced early in the survey by a new boat fitted with an

inboard jet motor. This vessel was more manoeuvrable than the original one and may have

confounded CPUE to some extent. However, it is unlikely that this change would have compromised

the CPUE in any measurable amount.

Only one operator (the boat skipper) participated in all of the twenty surveys. Across the 10 years of

the program there was some turnover of net operators. It is sensible to predict that the skipper almost

certainly became more skilled at locating and electrofishing lungfish during the 10 year program.

However, the influence of netting experience is less clear and probably not possible to isolate.

Lungfish behaviour

Analyses of CPUE confirmed that a consistent seasonal effect was evident in CPUE at all the

sampling locations. Catch rates were generally higher in winter than summer, particularly at sampling

locations downstream of Paradise Dam and Ned Churchward Weir. A similar pattern was also evident

at Gray’s Waterhole. We suggest that this pattern can be partly attributed to lungfish aggregating in

these locations during the winter/spring pre-spawning period. Lungfish courtship and spawning

behaviour was observed on numerous occasions during the winter surveys and running ripe fish were

collected in some of the samples. Lungfish courtship and spawning behaviour occurs in relatively

shallow sections of the river, making these fish more susceptible to electrofishing.

When the current monitoring program commenced in 2006, the fishway at Claude Wharton Weir was

not operating. Baseline surveys for Paradise Dam (Kind et. al. 2005) noted that lungfish collected

downstream of Claude Wharton Weir were in noticeably poorer condition than fish from the other

sampling sites. In the current survey, analyses of standardised CPUE confirmed that CPUE declined

significantly as the survey progressed. This decline was most notable after the fishway commenced


operating. During the same period, mean condition of lungfish collected below the weir began to

improve. This supports other internal technical reports, which recorded lungfish moving upstream

through the fishway. Later in the survey, CPUE at Claude Wharton increased again and mean

condition of the fish again decreased, after the fishway was rendered inoperable due to flood damage.

In addition to behavioural patterns described above, it is also likely that lungfish became more adept

at avoiding the electrofishing boat as the survey progressed. Previous experience with radio-tagged

lungfish in the Mary and Burnett Rivers (see Kind 2002) suggests that individuals move away from the

boat as it approaches. This is consistent with anecdotal observations from the current monitoring

program, where lungfish were often observed retreating into deep water as the boat was being

launched and during pre-fishing tests of the motor and generator.

Trends in CPUE

Overall CPUE from the 10-year sampling period in the current study was 1.36 (fish/minute). A one-

year pre-construction survey at similar locations (Kind et. al. 2005) reported higher overall CPUE of

1.99. The CPUE value reported by Kind et. al. (2005) represents results from a single year of

sampling when the Burnett River Catchment was experiencing widespread drought. During this

survey water levels were low and visibility was high at most of the sampling locations. Similar

conditions continued into early years of the current study. CPUE in 2006/7 was 1.88, 2007/8 was 1.69

and 2008/9 was 1.58. Following this period, Paradise Dam started to experience significant inflows

and mean CPUE declined as water depth increased in sites located within the dam.

In a survey conducted from 1997-2000 at a different sub-set of locations, Brooks and Kind (2002)

reported much lower overall CPUE (0.70).The CPUE reported by Brooks and Kind (2002) was

undertaken at sites extending from AMTD 37.5km to AMTD 321km and included three different

sampling techniques. The current survey was undertaken between AMTD 64km and AMTD 242km.

However, even corrected for technique and including only locations within the current survey area,

data from Brooks and Kind (2002) yield an overall CPUE of 0.71. Three sampling locations used in

the current survey were also included in the previous 4-year survey by Brooks and Kind (2002). A

summary of CPUE in these locations is presented in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 – Comparison of CPUE at three locations between current study and Brooks and

Kind (2002)

Study period Isis Gray’s Waterhole Mundubbera

1997-2002 0.80 0.61 0.44

2006-2016 1.79 0.69 0.67

This comparison indicates that CPUE in the current study at Isis (downstream of Ned Churchward

Weir) was more than double the CPUE reported by Brooks and Kind (2002) in the same area. Mean

CPUE in the current study at Gray’s Waterhole and Jones Weir at Mundubbera were also higher than

those reported by Brooks and Kind (2002).

Independent analysis of standardised CPUE data confirmed that statistically significant declines in

CPUE occurred in the Paradise Dam impoundment at Kalliwa Hut (Site 4), Mingo Gorge (Site 5) and

downstream of the Claude Wharton Weir (Site 7). We conclude that declining CPUE Paradise Dam

was largely an artefact of reduced catchability due to the inefficiency of electrofishing as a sampling

method in deep water, a view shared by the independent reviewers. At Claude Wharton Weir, we

suggest that declining lungfish numbers resulted at least partially from fish successfully ascended the

fishway and migrating out of the sampling site. At all other sites standardised CPUE estimates

fluctuated according to prevailing conditions and lungfish behavioural patterns without any long-term


trends becoming evident. The highest mean CPUE estimates were observed at the three locations

downstream of instream barriers (Claude Wharton, Figtree and Isis). These locations were all

characterised by flowing, relatively shallow water where lungfish are susceptible to electrofishing.

These areas also represented the best spawning habitats in the study areas. The result is also likely

to be representative of a redistribution of lungfish populations in the river as fish move over the

instream barriers during flood events and accumulate in pools downstream of the barriers.

Population estimates from mark and recapture

Mark and recapture methods were used in this study for a number of reasons. Recapture data were

used to describe growth and movements of fish tagged during the study. More importantly they

provided an alternative technique to detect changes in population size.

Population estimates derived from mark and recapture have a number of underlying assumptions

including;

1. Mortality rate is the same for marked and unmarked fish

2. Marked and unmarked fish are equally vulnerable to recapture

3. Tags are retained throughout the study and can be recognised on recapture

4. Marked fish mix equally with unmarked fish

5. There is negligible immigration or emigration during the study period

In the current study, trends in population were only assessed over time within each sampling location

and there was no attempt to estimate the total number of lungfish in the whole study area. Reliable

population estimates based on mark-recapture events were generated in five locations where

sufficient recaptures were collected. These were Isis (downstream of Ned Churchward Weir) and

Figtree (downstream of Paradise Dam), Gray’s Waterhole (upstream of Paradise Dam), below Claude

Wharton Weir and in Jones Weir at Mundubberra. In Kalliwa and Mingo Gorge, the recapture rate was

considered to be too low and/or too variable to adequately model population estimates.

There is little evidence from this study or previous lungfish monitoring programs to indicate that

mortality rate would vary between marked and unmarked lungfish. For example, Kind (2002), Kind et.

al. (2005) and DEEDI (2012 a,b) all reported results from long-term lungfish radio-telemetry studies.

In all of these studies, mortality rate was negligible and fish continued to behave normally over long

periods (telemetry records up to 996 days). In the current study, recaptures were collected from fish

tagged as far back as 1997 and multiple recaptures of the same individual were common. This

evidence provides a strong case that the assumption of equal mortality was met. Kind et. al. (2005)

reported high levels of PIT tag retention from lungfish “double tagged” with external and internal tags.

The same trend is evident in the current study, where there were no recorded instances of a PIT tag

not being present on a recaptured fish bearing an external tag. The inference here is that internal PIT

tags were reliably retained throughout the study and that the assumption of tag retention was also

met. Likewise, there was little evidence that marked fish did not mix equally with unmarked fish.

Marked and unmarked fish were consistently captured in the same locations throughout the study,

often at the same time. The relevant consideration here is whether previously tagged lungfish were

more able to avoid electrofishing (as previously discussed). The physical characteristics of some

sampling sites were more conducive to escape than others. For instance, Gray’s Waterhole is a steep

sided, deep pool where fish could easily retreat to deep water to avoid electrofishing. In contrast


Figtree is a long, shallow pool where fish are susceptible to electrofishing throughout the site.

However, large numbers of multiple recaptures suggest previously tagged fish were equally catchable

as untagged fish.

The assumption of negligible emigration or immigration is difficult to achieve in a long-term monitoring

program within an open river system and unlikely to have been met in this study. This was the main

driver for commissioning independent analyses of the mark/recapture data using more sophisticated

modelling techniques. However, in the current study, approximately 97% of all recaptures occurred in

the same location as the original tagging event. This observation is consistent with Brooks and Kind

(2002) who reported movements <1km in 56% of recaptured lungfish and a modal movement of zero.

One individual was recaptured five times in the same location. Telemetry studies (Kind 2002, Brooks

and Kind 2002, DEEDI 2012 a,b) have demonstrated that some lungfish can be highly mobile within

impounded waters. However, these studies also reported highly restricted movements in flowing river

reaches.

Mark and recapture events in the current study demonstrated that some fish traversed Paradise Dam

during flow events. This issue was also highlighted by DEEDI (2012 a,b) who noted lungfish and other

species moving over the dam wall during flood events. This immigration may have confounded mark

recapture outcomes at Figtree. Likewise, fish movements over the walls of Claude Wharton Weir and

Ned Churchward Weir probably confounded the results at these locations to some extent. However,

operation of the fishways at these locations, (which operated intermittently during the study period)

also led to some lungfish emigrating upstream. Kind et. al. (2005) noted that lungfish collected at the

base of Claude Wharton Weir were in poorer condition (had lower condition factor) that at other

locations. This trend continued in the current study until a fishlock was installed at Claude Wharton

Weir in April 2008. A subsequent monitoring program conducted between March 2008 and February

2010 (DAF 2013) recorded large numbers of fish including 144 lungfish successfully moving upstream

through the lock. The same study also recorded 13 tagged lungfish, which moved upstream through

the fishway before moving back over the weir crest in a subsequent flow. During this period in the

current monitoring program condition factor estimates from lungfish captured downstream of Claude

Wharton Weir improved while the fishway was operable, but began to fall again when the fishway was

damaged by flooding in 2012. These observations are consistent with lungfish emigrating upstream

from the site via the fishway and being replaced by other fish moving over the weir crest during flow

events.

Independent analyses of mark/recapture data provided further evidence of a decline in the size of the

lungfish population downstream of Claude Wharton Weir. As previously discussed, this is likely to

have been at least partially a result of lungfish successfully emigrating upstream via the fishway,

which became operable part way through the current study. Likewise, these analyses identified a

decline in lungfish numbers at Gray’s Waterhole, which recovered somewhat in the latter years of the

study. This result mirrored CPUE analyses at Gray’s Waterhole where, despite no overall significant

decline in CPUE, yearly CPUE estimates decreased from 2006 to 2012 and then levelled off. This

result is more difficult to interpret and is likely to have been influenced by changes in flow, spawning

behaviours and the deep, steep-sided nature of the waterhole.

At Site 1 (Isis) and Site 2 (Figtree), the mark/recapture analyses predicted that lungfish populations

were stable or increasing. These sites were in reaches downstream of Ned Churchward Weir and

Paradise Dam respectively. Catchability at Site 1(Isis) was much lower than Site 2 (Figtree), which

resulted in a higher overall population estimate at Isis. This result may have been related to the extent

of temporary migration in and out of the respective sampling areas. However, the movement data do


not provide compelling evidence to explore this possibility. Inferred population growth at both

locations was probably more related to immigration during flow events than to actual recruitment.

4.2 Lungfish population structure and spawning success

The size range of lungfish sampled during the current study (170-1390mm) was comparable with

previous monitoring programs in the Burnett River, including Brooks and Kind (2002) and Kind et. al.

(2005). Likewise, the samples were dominated by mature individuals, with only 5.6% of the sample

<600mm. Whether or not this outcome is a sampling artefact or a true representation of the lungfish

population structure is debatable. Kind and Brooks (2003) used the same sampling methods to collect

more than 28 000 native fish (36 species) from the Burnett River. Samples in this study were

dominated by small-bodied fish, which were easily detected and collected using boat-mounted

electrofishing. These samples also included small freshwater catfish, which are similar in appearance

to juvenile lungfish. Brooks (1995) was also able to collect lungfish <600mm using electrofishing

techniques. These observations suggest that low numbers of small lungfish are unlikely to result from

sampling bias. The more likely scenario is that successful lungfish spawning and recruitment events

occur periodically at intervals, as proposed by Kemp (1984). Length-frequency histograms from the

current study highlighted that a large proportion of individuals in the size range of 500-700mm were

collected during the first four years of the study (2006-2010). The age curve presented by Brooks and

Kind (2002) predicts that these fish would be approximately 7-12 years old, indicating that the last

successful breeding and recruitment events probably occurred at the time of or prior to the

construction of Paradise Dam.

The number of lungfish eggs and location of spawning events fluctuated widely during the study

period. Some spawning was recorded in seven of the ten years during the study. However, no eggs

were located in 2010, 2011 or 2015. A large proportion of eggs collected during the survey came from

locations downstream of barriers, most notably Ned Churchward Weir. Eggs were generally located

during late winter and spring, in shallow water amongst dense stands of submerged and emergent

aquatic plants. These observations are consistent with the large body of published scientific evidence

describing habitat preferences for lungfish spawning.

Lungfish eggs were only located within the impounded waters of Paradise Dam on one occasion

despite considerable sampling effort. These were recorded at Mingo Crossing during Winter/Spring of

2012, where some suitable macrophytes had become established in a localised area. Some eggs

were collected in the upper reaches prior to the dam reaching full capacity and four running ripe fish

were located in the dam on another occasion. Small patches of potential spawning habitat were also

observed periodically during the survey. However, the overall conclusion here is consistent with other

studies (e.g. Brooks and Kind 2002) that impounded waters are largely unsuitable habitat for lungfish

breeding.

Spawning events observed during this study are not directly indicative of successful recruitment.

Indeed, observations made during the study confirmed that many of the eggs batches were either

inundated or exposed before they were fully developed. Recruitment from these spawning events

may only become apparent 7-12 years after the eggs were laid, extending beyond the current survey

period. Apart from some apparent recruitment early in the study, there was little evidence to suggest

that the structure of local lungfish populations changed during the current survey period. This is

despite the extreme environmental fluctuations observed in the study period.


Analyses of sex ratio was included in the original survey design for this monitoring program, to

provide another indicator of potential changes that may have occurred in local lungfish populations

over time. Following the Animal Ethics Committee ruling in 2010 to prohibit internal gonad

examination, this measure was essentially rendered ineffective. While records continued to be made

when fish in running ripe condition were collected, this occurred too infrequently to provide a reliable

ongoing estimate of sex ratio.

5 Conclusions

This results of this study confirmed that adult lungfish remain common and widespread throughout the

survey area, 10 years after the Paradise Dam became operational in 2006. There was no evidence of

ongoing decline or change in the structure of local lungfish populations downstream of Paradise Dam

or in the control sites. Overall Catch Per Unit Effort in the current study was comparable or higher

than CPUE estimates reported by previous lungfish monitoring programs using the same techniques

in similar locations within the Burnett River.

Lungfish became progressively more difficult to catch in Paradise Dam as the dam filled and reached

full capacity. Boat electrofishing was rendered largely ineffective as a sampling technique once the

dam filled, creating an impoundment up to 30m deep. This observation was confirmed by rapid

declines in CPUE estimates at sampling sites within the impoundment. The inefficiency of

electrofishing in deep water meant that it was not possible to estimate the size of the lungfish

population within Paradise Dam using mark and recapture data. Given the significant animal welfare

risks associated with netting lungfish in deep water, it is difficult to recommend a more suitable

technique for sampling lungfish in the dam. If any future lungfish monitoring occurs, the best

compromise may be to sample upper reaches of the dam and conduct surveys during the night when

lungfish are more active.

Mark/recapture data collected in the current study confirmed that some lungfish successfully

emigrated from Paradise Dam and moved into river reaches further downstream. These individuals

either used the downstream fishway or moved over the crest of the dam of the dam during spillway

flow events. Visual observations confirmed that some lungfish did move over the wall during spillway

flow events. A previous assessment of the downstream fishway at Paradise Dam (DEEDI 2012a),

reported that some lungfish suffered injuries or were killed attempting such movements. While the

results presented here confirm that some individuals also survive, neither study was designed to

estimate what the net impact of these movements would be on the overall size of local lungfish

populations. Regardless, it is likely that such movements have resulted in a net downstream re-

distribution of local lungfish populations.

In the two sampling sites downstream of Paradise Dam (Site 1, Isis and Site 2, Figtree)

mark/recapture models inferred that lungfish populations were stable or even increasing. Analyses of

raw CPUE data at Site 2, Figtree suggested that CPUE declined during summer surveys over time,

but that no similar pattern was evident in the winter surveys. When the CPUE data were standardised

against environmental covariates, summer flow events reduced catchability and confounded the

CPUE relationship at this site. This result is consistent with observations provided by the field team

who commented on difficulties accessing and surveying this site when significant flow events were

occurring. The prediction that lungfish populations were stable or increasing downstream of Paradise

Dam is also consistent with the earlier inference that flow events are resulting in a progressive

downstream re-distribution of local lungfish populations.


There were varied outcomes in sampling sites located upstream of Paradise Dam. At Site 7, Claude

Wharton Weir, CPUE and mark/recapture models both indicated that lungfish numbers decreased

during the survey period. This sampling location was situated immediately downstream of Claude

Wharton Weir, which had a fishway retrofitted during the current survey. A separate assessment of

the fishway (DAFF, 2013) highlighted lungfish successfully ascending this fishway. These emigration

events probably contributed strongly to the decrease in lungfish number in the sampling site. Mark /

recapture records also highlighted some instances of lungfish emigrating from this site in a

downstream direction and some immigration into the site. A Site 6, Grays Waterhole, there was no

consistent trend in CPUE. However, mark / recapture data suggested that the population was

declining over time. There are no obvious explanations for this outcome.

There was limited evidence of recruitment into the adult lungfish populations after the first four years

of the study. Evidence of fish recruiting into the adult population during the early years of this study

indicated that the last successful spawning events in the Burnett River probably occurred just prior to

or during construction of the Paradise Dam. This observation is consistent with authors such as Kemp

(1984) and Kind (2011) who have suggested that long periods between successful recruitment events

may be normal for lungfish. However, this outcome does little to resolve longstanding concern over

the paucity of juvenile lungfish found during similar monitoring programs and collection efforts

spanning back to the 1800s.

Lungfish eggs were located in the study area during seven of the 10 survey years. The location and

number of eggs varied from year to year. However, the majority of eggs were located downstream of

Ned Churchward Weir and Paradise Dam in shallow water amongst dense aquatic plant beds in late

Winter and Spring. This result is consistent with a large body of published work describing lungfish

spawning habitat preferences. Some lungfish eggs were collected from the upper reaches of Paradise

Dam while the dam was still filling, and once after Paradise Dam reached full capacity. No further

eggs were located despite considerable search effort. Four lungfish in breeding condition were

sampled in the dam on one occasion. These observations support previous studies, which have

concluded that suitable lungfish breeding habitat rarely arises in impounded waters.

Observations and mark and recapture records confirmed that some lungfish moved downstream past

the wall of Paradise Dam during the monitoring program. These fish may have successfully

negotiated the downstream fishway at the dam, which operated for a total of (approximately) two

years during the 10-year monitoring program. A more likely explanation is that these fish moved over

the spillway of the dam sometime during a series of overtopping events, which occurred in the second

half of the monitoring program. Subsequent recaptures of lungfish downstream of the dam wall,

confirmed that some individuals at least are able to survive this movement. Presumably lungfish also

descended over other barriers during the study, resulting in some mortality and re-distribution of local

lungfish populations.

Condition 7 of the variation of approval for Paradise Dam required a review to be conducted of the

impacts of the dam on local lungfish populations. Based on the outcomes of the current monitoring

program, these impacts may be summarised as follows

1. There was little change in the size or structure of lungfish populations during the 10 year

period following construction of Paradise Dam. Lungfish remained a widespread and common

species in all the sampling sites throughout the program.

2. The condition of lungfish observed during the monitoring program fluctuated within limits

observed in previous lungfish monitoring programs in the Burnett River.

3. The impounded waters of Paradise Dam appear unlikely to represent suitable habitat for

successful lungfish spawning and recruitment. This conclusion is consistent with a previous

study in the impoundment formed by Ned Churchward Weir (Brooks and Kind 2002).


4. Fishway monitoring programs described in DEEDI (2012 a,b) documented mortalities and

injuries suffered by lungfish moving over the spillway of the dam during periods of

overtopping. Some lungfish in the current study made movements from within the dam to river

reaches downstream of the dam wall. It is unclear whether these fish moved over the spillway

or utilised the downstream fishway at Paradise Dam. Regardless, the recaptures provide

evidence that some individuals can make such movements without suffering long-term injury

or death.

5. However, downstream movements during such flow events may be leading to a gradual

accumulation of lungfish in river reaches downstream of the dam wall. If this is the case, the

condition of any fish unable to move back upstream is likely to deteriorate over time. As

discussed previously, lungfish downstream of Claude Wharton Weir exhibited poor condition

prior to installation of the fishlock on that barrier. Likewise, lungfish stranded downstream of

North Pine Dam on the North Pine River (where there is no fishway device) also exhibit poor

condition relative to individuals collected within the dam (DAF unpublished data 2007). Given

these observations, it is important that the fishway at Paradise Dam continues to operate so

that displaced fish can make return upstream movements.


6 References

Berghuis, A. P. and C.D. Broadfoot (2004). Upstream passage of Queensland lungfish at Ned

Churchward Weir fishlock. Report prepared for the Department of State Development

Brooks, S. (1995). Short-term study of the breeding requirements of lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri)

in the Burnett River with specific reference to the possible effects of the proposed Walla Weir.

Queensland, DPI.

Brooks, S. G. and P.K. Kind (2002). Ecology and demography of the Queensland lungfish

(Neoceratodus forsteri) in the Burnett River, Queensland. Report prepared for the Queensland

Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

DAFF (2013). Claude Wharton Weir Fishlock Monitoring Program. Report to Department of

Infrastructure and Planning 2013

DEEDI (2012a). Paradise Dam Downstream Fishway Monitoring Program. Final Report June 2011.

DEEDI (2012b). Paradise Dam Upstream Fishway Monitoring Program. Final Report June 2011.

Duivenvoorden, L. J. (1997). Base line study of the aquatic and semi-aquatic flora of the Burnett River

in relation to the proposed Walla Weir, Report for Qld DNR, Resource Development and Planning.

Kemp, A. (1984). Spawning of the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft) in the Brisbane

River and in Enoggera Reservoir, Queensland. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 21(2): 391–399.

Kind, P.K. (2002). Movement patterns and habitat use in the Queensland lungfish, Neoceratodus

forsteri (Krefft, 1870). PhD Thesis, University of Queensland.

Kind, P.K. (2011). The Natural History of the Australian Lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri (Krefft, 1870).

In: J.M. Jorgenson and J. Joss (eds) The Biology of Lungfishes. CRC Press, Enfield, New Hampshire.

pp. 61-95.

Kind, P.K. and S.G. Brooks (2003). Fish communities in the Lower Burnett River Queensland. Report

prepared for the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Kind, P.K., Brooks, S.G. and S.A. Piltz (2005). Burnett River Dam Baseline Lungfish Monitoring.

Report prepared for Burnett Water Pty Ltd May 2005


7 Water quality measurements

7.1 Summary of water quality data for 2006 to 2008.

(NR=not recorded due to equipment malfunction) (Tw= water temperature)

Site 1 - Isis

Depth

(m)

Tw (0C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Conductivity (ppm)

06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08

Wint Sum Wint Sum Wint Sum Wint Sum Wint Sum Wint Sum Wint Sum Wint Sum

1 16.7 23.7 17.6 24.9 9.84 0.45 2.4 NR 7.74 6.95 8.23 7.4 740 542 495 134.2

2 16.4 22.8 17.0 23.4 11.06 0.35 2.2 NR 7.85 6.76 7.74 7.3 700 551 490 163.7

3 16.3 22.6 16.5 23.1 13.96 0.31 2.4 NR 7.85 6.7 7.51 7.12 674 545 495 165.5

4 22.9 NR 7.04 166.6

Visibility Winter 06 2600mm Summer 07 300 mm Winter 07 1500mm Summer 08 600mm

Site 2 - Figtree

Depth

(m)


06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 26 5.65 8.1 477

2 25.5 2.55 7.85 488

3

Visibility Winter 06 1000mm Summer 07 900mm Winter 07 Summer 08

Site 3 – Paradise Dam

Depth Tw (0C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Conductivity (ppm)

06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 19.8 23.2 10.19 7.63 8.13 8.35 464 543

2 19.5 10.34 8.07 459

Visibility Winter 06 1000mm Summer 07 1200mm

Site 4 - Kalliwa


06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 17.3 26.1 23 22.7 11.63 10.1 8.9 7.54 8.36 7.88 7.69 455 509 485 264

2 17.1 25.1 22.8 22.4 11.72 7.8 9.1 7.21 8.64 7.92 7.47 461 510 490 272

3 17 24.8 22 22.3 11.55 4.65 9.35 7.23 8.26 7.89 7.32 463 508 490 274

4 15.8 24.2 21.7 22.3 2.94 0.32 9.25 6.89 7.25 7.97 7.21 466 486 490 271

5 15.6 23.1 22.2 1.22 0.25 6.42 7.22 7.09 467 521 274

6 15.4 22.2 22.1 1.01 0.25 6.19 6.94 6.92 471 547 306

7 15.3 20.6 22.2 2.77 0.25 4.93 5.86 6.89 473 572 305

8 15.3 19.1 3.78 0.31 4.84 6.41 473 596

9 15.3 4.4 4.61 473

Visibility Winter 06 1000mm Summer 07 900mm Winter 07 5000mm Summer 08 1000mm

Site 5 - Mingo Gorge



06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 25.2 22.3 24.6 6.65 9.55 8.2 8.28 7.39 581 611 301

2 24.6 22 23.2 5.04 9.9 7.88 8.23 7.22 579 603 296

3 21.4 20.2 22.6 3.07 9.6 7.31 8.04 7.16 562 604 296

4 22.5 18.2 22.1 0.21 7.4 7.06 7.75 7.08 414 606 301

5 21.3 21.9 0.15 6.8 7.03 329 304

6 20.8 21.8 0.15 6.65 7 279 304

7 20.2 21.7 0.15 6.6 6.94 240 305

8 20.2 0.12 6.57 237

Visibility Winter 06 Summer 07 400mm Winter 07 1400mm Summer 08 150mm

Site 6 - Gray’s Waterhole


06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 17.5 25.8 16.5 23.9 12.36 11.05 7.73 8.05 8.34 7.27 597 706 785

2 17 25.8 15.9 23.9 10.74 8.9 6.92 7.39 8.1 7.26 592 681 784

3 16.1 25.7 15.2 24 8.08 6.85 6.96 7.31 7.93 7.24 597 673 787

4 15.7 25.7 15 24 5.56 5.8 6.61 7.22 7.8 7.22 601 689 785

5 15.5 25 14.8 23.9 4.8 4.5 6.32 6.89 7.8 7.2 603 693 785

6 15.3 25 14.6 4.16 2.85 5.93 6.94 7.47 603 696 781

7 15.1 14.2 3.43 1.4 5.21 7.42 605 777

8 15 14.1 2.76 1.35 5.02 7.4 608 780


Site 7 – Claude Wharton Weir.


06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 19.4 17.4 13.4 9.9 7.8 8.16 743 864

2 17.2 11.45 7.57 740

3 15.9 6.83 747

Visibility Winter 06 1000mm Summer 07 Winter 07 Summer 08

Site 8 - Mundubbera


06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 24.1 16.2 22.4 0.99 7.5 1.7 4.87 7.28 6.75 224 456 202

2 23.5 15.5 21.9 0.45 5.6 1.8 5.14 7.21 6.75 223 452 195.2

3 23.4 21.8 0.32 1.85 5.05 6.71 223 198.8

4 21.7 1.95 6.73 200.1



7.2 Summary of water quality data for 2008-2010.


Site 1 - Isis

Depth

(m)


08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10


1 17.5 31.3 20.4 24 7.82 6.3 4.69 5.91 8.7 7.96 9.24 6.9 431 521 660 224

2 17 30.8 19.7 23.9 7.68 5.11 4.1 5.87 8.5 7.81 9.02 7.01 428 520 660 224

3 16.9 29.4 18.9 23.9 7.6 4.24 4.41 5.87 8.38 7.64 9.36 7.02 428 516 673 225

4 16.4 23.9 7.6 5.8 8.26 7.03 430 225


Site 2 - Figtree

Depth

(m)


08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10


1 16.4 28 15.3 24.2 7.77 2.75 4.8 6.26 8.5 7.47 7.82 7.32 529 425 470 194.9

2 16.3 28 15.3 24.1 7.65 2.41 3.77 6.26 8.35 7.34 7.7 7.27 530 445 472 196

3 24.1 6.24 7.16 198


Site 4 - Kalliwa


08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10


1 17.8 29.9 19.7 29 4.3 6.02 4.7 7.7 7.96 8.4 8 8.4 352 378 428 444

2 17.7 28.9 19 28.6 4.23 4.7 4.57 7.55 7.89 8.25 7.82 8.4 354 375 425 450

3 17.5 28.5 18.6 28 3.91 4.38 4.11 7.4 7.82 7.89 7.71 8.36 351 375 431 454

4 17.6 28.2 18.2 26.9 3.73 4.04 3.1 7.03 7.75 7.63 7.61 8.2 351 377 431 450

5 17.5 28 18.1 26.2 3.65 3.18 3.17 6.03 7.71 7.51 7.45 7.8 351 375 432 453

6 17.5 27.8 18 26.2 3.55 2.79 2.69 5.8 7.68 7.41 7.33 7.84 349 366 435 458

7 17.5 27.7 17.7 25.1 3.41 1.65 1.28 2.5 7.66 7.23 7.14 7.23 351 365 433 461

8 17.4 27.2 17.6 24.6 3.35 1.18 1 0.6 7.7 7.2 7.07 7.08 352 370 433 459

9 27 22.4 0.9 0 7.16 6.9 372 511





08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10


1 17.8 29.5 18.3 30.4 7.21 6.17 6.8 7.21 7.62 8.1 7.48 8.6 361 384 440 521

2 17.1 29.3 17.7 29.5 5.76 4.84 4 7.01 7.55 7.97 7.47 8.54 364 384 445 501

3 16.6 29.2 17.6 28.7 4.58 4.95 4.15 6.1 7.49 7.86 7.39 8.3 366 384 457 501

4 16.2 28.5 17.5 28.5 4.3 3.92 3.98 5.64 7.39 7.72 7.36 8.13 370 370 450 506

5 16 28.3 17.5 28.2 4.26 2.56 3.9 4.27 7.32 7.51 7.31 7.79 368 359 445 534

6 15.9 28.1 17.5 28.1 4.42 1.88 3.95 3.19 7.2 7.43 7.27 6.87 375 346 445 563

7 15.9 28 17.5 27.8 5.53 1.41 3.79 3.51 7.24 7.32 7.25 6.72 378 330 445 582

8 15.9 27.9 17.4 27.1 4.95 1.27 3.68 0.6 7.23 7.24 7.21 6.65 378 331 446 595

9 27.7 17.4 22.6 1.06 3.57 0.25 7.15 7.18 6.5 329 443 519




08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10 08/09 09/10


1 17.5 31.7 17 28 8.3 4.47 5.77 6.77 7.02 8.73 7.8 7.57 506 467 495 510

2 15.6 31.2 16.8 27.8 8 3.84 4.28 6.36 7 7.85 7.76 7.76 480 472 496 514

3 15.3 30 16.5 27.6 7.48 3.48 4.18 6.19 6.95 7.69 7.68 7.74 483 476 494 518

4 15.2 28.8 16.2 27.4 7.37 2.82 3.9 5.84 6.85 7.6 7.53 7.69 494 475 499 518

5 15.1 28.2 16.1 27.2 7.28 2.2 3.53 5.26 6.7 7.46 7.52 7.62 497 470 498 520

6 15.1 28 16 26.9 7.26 1.66 3.48 4.8 6.6 7.6 7.5 7.55 497 470 498 519

7 15 27.9 15.9 26.6 7.24 1.35 3.28 4.37 6.5 7.28 7.44 7.48 500 470 504 523

8 15 27.9 15.9 26.4 7.24 1.1 3.06 3.5 6.45 7.41 7.42 502 473 504 529

9 15.9 26.3 2.96 3.4 7.38 7.35 503 529




06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 19.4 17.4 13.4 9.9 7.8 8.16 743 864

2 17.2 11.45 7.57 740

3 15.9 6.83 747

Visibility Winter 06 1000mm Summer 07 Winter 07 Summer 08

Site 8 - Mundubbera


06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08 06/07 07/08


1 24.1 16.2 22.4 0.99 7.5 1.7 4.87 7.28 6.75 224 456 202

2 23.5 15.5 21.9 0.45 5.6 1.8 5.14 7.21 6.75 223 452 195.2

3 23.4 21.8 0.32 1.85 5.05 6.71 223 198.8

4 21.7 1.95 6.73 200.1





Site 1 - Isis

Depth

(m)


10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 18 28.1 18.3 28.3 8.3 6.94 7.61 8.42 8.03 8.42 7.59 327 435 705 683

2 17.2 28.2 17.6 28.1 8.2 6.22 7.55 8.23 7.96 8.37 7.62 327 434 714 685

3 16.8 28.2 17.2 28 8.1 5.67 7.45 8.1 7.93 8.33 7.63 329 435 715 687

4 16.6 17 8 7.37 8.01 8.3 340 715


Site 2 - Figtree

Depth

(m)


10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 19 28.7 17.6 26.6 8.5 8.43 8.52 6.19 8.43 8.5 7.84 283 458 672 748

2 18.3 28.4 17.3 26.4 8.4 8.4 8.51 6.06 840 8.54 7.89 282 459 674 748

3 28.3 16.8 26.4 5.43 8.52 8.35 8.5 7.94 460 681 740


Site 4 - Kalliwa


10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 18.3 29.9 16.4 26.8 7.8 9.96 9.72 8.05 8.66 8.6 6.84 278 469 650 720

2 16.9 29.9 16.4 26.6 6.2 9.05 9.34 7.97 8.58 8.64 7.15 270 466 650 724

3 16.2 27.5 16 26.6 4.8 6.62 8.6 7.81 7.99 8.56 7.3 278 481 647 727

4 15.8 27.3 15.8 26.6 3.6 4.61 8.23 8.33 7.73 8.48 7.53 278 505 648 730

5 15.6 27.1 15.5 26.6 2.9 3.56 7.81 8.26 7.6 8.36 7.59 276 500 646 730

6 15.5 26.9 15 26.6 2.5 2.92 6.66 8.57 7.5 8.24 7.68 277 499 645 732

7 15.5 26.9 14.8 26.5 2.3 2.33 5.73 8.74 7.43 8.16 7.72 277 502 647 734

8 15.5 26.8 14.8 26.5 2.2 1.96 4.73 7.55 7.41 8.07 7.75 277 491 645 735

9 15.5 26.7 14.7 26.4 2.2 1.63 4.33 7.41 7.28 8.08 7.21 277 480 652 742

Visibility Winter 10 650mm Summer 11 Winter 11 1600mm Summer 12 1000mm




10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 16.7 30.3 16.5 27.6 6.5 7.74 7.1 7.7 8.72 8.27 7.67 316 749 647 615

2 16.5 30.3 16.4 26.8 6.4 7.15 6.96 7.7 8.62 8.25 7.53 318 776 647 617

3 16.1 29.9 16.2 26.6 5.7 6.32 6.84 8 8.37 8.23 7.53 318 812 647 619

4 16 28.8 16 26.5 5.2 5.3 6.85 7.87 8.14 8.2 7.53 318 871 645 619

5 15.7 28.3 15.8 26.5 4.2 4.59 6.82 7.42 8.04 8.17 7.54 318 877 642 618

6 15.5 28.2 15.7 26.5 3.5 4.11 6.9 7.57 7.99 8.16 7.56 314 876 644 618

7 15.5 28.2 15.7 26.5 3.1 3.91 6.9 7.59 7.96 8.14 7.56 314 875 644 618

8 15.4 28.1 15.6 26.4 2.8 3.54 6.69 7.73 7.92 8.12 7.57 317 866 643 618

9 15.4 28.2 15.5 26.4 2.7 3.92 6.26 7.6 7.95 8.09 7.58 319 877 643 618




10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 16.4 26.3 16.8 24.1 7 7.3 7.8 7.28 8.37 8.53 7.94 714 931 1345 625

2 16.5 26.1 17 23.9 6.4 7 7.8 7.23 8.35 8.45 7.91 695 934 1348 663

3 16.2 26 16.4 23.8 5.6 6.5 7.66 7.17 8.3 8.46 7.91 684 937 1342 663

4 15.9 26 16.4 23.7 5.2 6.36 7.82 7.19 8.27 8.44 7.89 679 938 1347 663

5 15.4 26 16 23.7 4.7 6.4 7.8 7.15 8.26 8.43 7.89 671 940 1342 663

6 15.2 26 15.9 23.4 4.3 6.33 7.62 7.07 8.29 8.41 7.87 673 940 1342 663

7 15 26 15.8 23.4 4 6.35 7.29 7.08 8.29 8.38 7.87 673 940 1326 663

8 14.9 26 15.6 23.5 3.8 6.35 6.94 7.03 8.26 8.35 7.85 679 941 1316 662

9 14.8 26 15.4 23.5 3.6 6.11 6.35 7.02 8.28 8.36 7.83 681 936 1305 663




10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 17 26.1 15.8 24.4 7.8 7.2 8.29 7.34 7.9 8.47 7.94 691 780 1511 750

2 16.7 25.8 15.7 24.3 8.1 6.8 8.1 80.1 7.9 8.47 7.91 690 780 1511 756

3 16.6 25.7 15.6 24.3 7.9 6.4 8.2 6.97 7.9 8.48 7.91 693 784 1500 756

4 25.6 15.2 6.3 7.91 7.9 8.44 786 1511

5 15.2 7.7 8.44 1527



Site 8 - Mundubbera


10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12 10/11 11/12


1 15.1 26.4 16.8 26.6 6.6 10.32 10.25 6.55 8.37 8.32 7.76 664 736 1216 525

2 15.1 25.2 16.1 25.6 6.4 7.19 10 6.93 8.03 8.29 7.66 665 720 1213 530

3 15.1 24.7 14.2 25 6.3 6.9 8.51 7.01 7.84 8.15 7.58 665 713 1265 527

4 14.3 24.6 13.8 24.9 4.8 5.45 7.5 7.01 7.77 8.01 7.53 646 708 1365 527

5 14.3 24.5 13.8 24.6 4.6 5.14 4.8 6.98 7.72 7.85 7.07 643 712 1517 529





Site 1 - Isis

Depth

(m)


12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 16.4 22.4 21.5 26.7 NR 10 8.95 8.83 7.77 7.84 7.19 8.32 621 602 921 1482

2 16 22.5 21.5 26.7 NR 9.59 11.5 8.77 7.73 7.74 7.19 8.31 617 600 922 1482

3 15.7 22.5 21.5 26.6 NR 8.52 11.1 7.55 7.72 7.73 7.19 8.26 616 601 921 1456

4 22.5 21.5 8.78 10.96 7.73 7.19 602 922

5 21.4 9.4 7.19 921

Visibility Winter 12 1000 mm Summer 13 900 mm Winter 13 700 mm Summer 14 800 mm

Site 2 - Figtree

Depth

(m)


12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 17.8 23.8 22.4 25.9 NR 8.26 8 8.23 7.97 7.26 7.2 7.96 650 578 1044 1521

2 17 23.7 22.4 25.8 NR 8.12 8.8 7.2 8.05 7.25 7.2 7.98 656 590 1044 1521

3 23.6 25.7 8.05 7.29 7.25 7.93 591 1521


Site 4 - Kalliwa


12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 16.7 23.8 21 26.5 NR 2.98 8.47 7.86 8.02 6.71 7.36 8.32 629 555 893 1583

2 16.4 23.7 20.5 26.4 NR 3.22 8.14 7.65 8.01 6.72 7.39 8.25 631 559 900 1586

3 15.9 23.6 20.1 26.2 NR 3.2 8.32 5.86 7.96 6.7 7.39 8.19 630 559 902 1593

4 15.6 23.6 19.2 26.2 NR 3.2 8.27 5.8 7.88 6.69 7.4 8.17 631 567 902 1593

5 15.4 23.6 18.6 26.1 NR 3.5 6.28 5.3 7.81 6.67 7.39 8.13 630 572 904 1594

6 15.4 23.5 18.3 26.0 NR 3.94 6.67 4.5 7.74 6.65 7.45 8.00 634 565 910 1593

7 15.3 23.5 18.2 25.7 NR 3.89 6.33 1.4 7.69 6.62 7.52 7.94 634 566 921 1593

8 15.3 23.5 18.1 25.5 NR 6.18 5.94 1.04 7.64 6.6 7.4 7.80 637 575 940 1583

9 15.2 23.5 18.1 25.3 NR 5.14 6.89 0.9 7.59 6.54 7.45 7.82 638 577 949 1576





12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 15 24.4 19.4 29.6 NR 7.37 7.58 11.64 7.84 8 7.66 8.50 716 1043 1079 1687

2 14.7 23.9 19.1 28.8 NR 7.7 8.79 9.10 7.83 7.98 7.66 8.46 720 1021 1102 1692

3 14.6 23.7 18.9 28.1 NR 9.8 8.81 7.50 7.82 7.93 7.66 8.38 721 1027 1168 1699

4 14.6 23.6 18.7 27.8 NR 10.72 8.5 6.86 7.82 7.96 7.65 8.30 720 1031 1207 1700

5 14.5 23.6 18.6 27.7 NR 10.4 8.3 8.61 7.82 7.96 7.65 8.26 724 1032 1233 1706

6 14.5 23.6 18.6 27.6 NR 10.3 6.1 8.50 7.83 7.96 7.79 8.23 724 1038 1271 1703

7 14.5 23.6 18.5 27.5 NR 10.21 6.11 8.39 7.83 7.97 7.73 8.17 725 1037 1320 1704

8 14.5 23.6 18.5 27.4 NR 9.02 6.24 9.14 7.83 7.96 7.73 8.18 725 1034 1347 1701

9 14.5 23.6 18.4 27.2 NR 8.85 6.2 6.50 7.83 7.96 7.71 8.12 725 1041 1357 1701




12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 14.7 22.6 20.5 29.5 10.1 7.96 11.14 10.70 7.09 7.71 7.56 8.61 740 1204 1768 1563

2 14.5 22.5 20.2 28.6 8.7 7.78 11.2 9.30 7.39 7.7 7.56 8.59 741 1202 1768 1582

3 14 22.5 19.5 27.8 9.17 8.49 12.67 7.50 7.52 7.7 7.55 8.54 7.46 1201 1767 1588

4 13.7 22.6 18.9 27.6 9.76 8.54 12.43 6.90 7.59 7.78 7.55 8.50 748 1203 1766 1596

5 13.6 22.6 18.7 27.4 10.07 8.63 11.54 4.56 7.68 7.79 7.54 8.37 744 1211 1771 1591

6 13.5 22.6 18.4 27.1 10.14 8.74 11.16 4.82 7.72 7.8 7.54 8.28 744 1204 1774 1594

7 13.4 22.6 18.3 27.1 10.22 8.75 12.08 5.10 7.75 7.81 7.63 8.21 743 1206 1775 1602

8 13.3 22.6 18.3 26.6 10.3 8.93 12.82 4.35 7.7 7.82 7.66 8.04 747 1206 1774 1602

9 13.3 22.5 18.2 26.4 13.19 9.1 12.7 3.03 7.79 7.82 7.69 7.85 746 1206 1775 1600




12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 16.1 22.5 18.4 26.5 NR 7.19 7.42 8.72 7.65 7.81 7.58 8.37 791 1254 1766 1453

2 15.9 22.4 18.1 26.6 NR 7.91 7.63 8.83 7.68 7.72 7.58 8.25 794 1260 1777 1450

3 15.6 22.2 17.9 26.6 NR 7.61 8.7 9.17 7.72 7.69 7.6 8.19 788 1262 1781 1449

4 14.7 22.2 17.8 26.5 NR 7.36 9.88 12.71 7.75 7.58 7.58 8.11 793 1264 1782 1448

5 22.1 17.8 6.73 9.76 7.56 7.6 1268 1784

6 22 6.84 7.55 1270



Site 8 - Mundubbera


12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14


1 14.7 22.7 20.5 NR 9 11.26 7.4 7.81 7.45 649 1145 1554

2 14.6 21.9 19.5 NR 8.72 11.61 7.42 7.75 7.45 640 1141 1564

3 14.6 21.5 18.4 NR 8.14 11.04 7.46 7.69 7.46 645 1135 1552

4 14.5 21.4 17.7 NR 8.28 9.3 7.4 7.65 7.46 640 1146 1560

5 14.5 21.3 17.7 NR 8.24 7.44 7.4 7.63 7.46 640 1150 1594

Visibility Winter 12 900 mm Summer 13 900 mm Winter 13 1300 mm Summer 14 mm




Site 1 - Isis

Depth

(m)


14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 25.4 28.7 NR 28.0 8.50 11.25 NR 6.73 8.94 8.51 NR 8.04 1068 337 NR 488

2 25.2 28.9 NR 28.0 8.86 11.28 NR 5.87 8.34 8.33 NR 7.95 1068 337 NR 496

3 25 28.9 NR 28.0 7.92 10.55 NR 5.33 8.32 8.17 NR 7.92 1078 337 NR 496

4 23.9 29 NR 27.8 7.20 10.11 NR 4.88 8.24 8.09 NR 7.84 1081 338 NR 493

5 22.7 NR 5.60 NR 8.14 NR 1070 NR


Site 2 - Figtree

Depth

(m)


14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 26.7 29.8 19.5 26.0 9.13 7.18 NR 5.54 8.84 8.47 NR 8.47 1531 350 NR 440

2 24.7 29.5 19.5 26.0 10.75 7.91 NR 5.25 8.88 8.25 NR 8.39 1523 349 NR 440

3 24.3 29.4 19.5 26.0 10.5 8.42 NR 5.2 8.85 8.24 NR 7.97 1524 350 NR 440


Site 4 - Kalliwa


14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 19.7 28.0 NR 28.2 7.10 5.63 NR 3.31 8.40 8.43 NR 8.48 1511 1044 NR 439

2 19.7 27.8 NR 28.1 7.36 5.26 NR 2.75 8.37 8.28 NR 8.34 1517 1076 NR 439

3 19.6 27.7 NR 27.8 7.41 5.16 NR 2.44 8.34 8.18 NR 8.25 1519 1098 NR 440

4 19.5 27.6 NR 27.6 8.15 9.05 NR 2.29 8.34 8.05 NR 8.18 1521 1117 NR 440

5 19.5 27.6 NR 27.6 8.13 9.2 NR 2.22 7.81 8.27 NR 8.05 1523 1117 NR 440

6 18.8 27.6 NR 27.5 5.8 9.37 NR 2.22 7.94 8.15 NR 7.98 1531 1117 NR 439

7 18.7 27.5 NR 27.2 4.98 12.56 NR 1.8 7.89 8.03 NR 7.9 1533 1113 NR 435

8 18.6 27.5 NR 26.8 4.69 11.69 NR 1.35 7.86 7.98 NR 7.8 1536 1108 NR 430

9 18.2 27.5 NR 27.7 4.31 11.28 NR 1.65 7.81 7.94 NR 7.7 1540 1098 NR 434





14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 22.6 27.6 18.0 29.5 12.2 5.45 8.3 5.23 8.57 8.35 7.53 8.53 1527 485 477 383

2 22.3 27.6 17.8 28.9 24.1 5.02 8.31 4.88 8.58 8.25 7.64 8.45 1540 485 476 380

3 21.6 27.6 17.7 28.8 22.2 5.29 8.13 4.21 8.56 8.14 7.54 8.39 1546 485 476 379

4 21.2 27.6 17.6 28.8 17.35 4.98 7.94 3.58 8.51 8.09 7.67 8.33 1540 485 476 382

5 21.1 27.6 17.5 28.8 16.37 5.13 7.8 3.33 8.48 7.99 7.54 8.25 1544 485 476 381

6 21.5 27.6 17.5 28.7 15.89 4.91 7.62 3.13 8.46 7.92 7.48 8.18 1546 485 476 380

7 20.9 27.6 17.5 28.7 15.1 5.02 7.5 2.94 8.41 7.82 7.43 8.13 1552 485 476 380

8 20.7 27.6 17.4 28.6 14.6 4.63 7.2 2.82 8.37 7.78 7.31 8.04 1555 487 478 379

9 20.6 27.6 17.3 28.3 14.3 4.66 6.63 2.66 8.33 7.73 7.32 8.03 1555 487 480 372




14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 22.2 30.0 19.3 30.5 11.27 7.94 10.64 6.45 8.44 8.53 8.12 8.59 1592 542 917 390

2 22.0 29.7 17.7 29.9 11.4 8.12 11.0 6.21 8.46 8.24 8.04 8.51 1593 549 902 387

3 22.0 29.6 17.7 29.8 10.7 7.93 11.16 6.2 8.48 8.11 8.05 8.45 1599 551 904 387

4 22.0 29.5 17.0 29.8 10.7 8.10 8.82 6.06 8.19 7.96 7.76 8.45 1598 552 944 384

5 21.2 29.5 16.9 29.7 10.7 8.57 8.11 6.03 8.47 7.88 7.57 8.33 1605 553 947 382

6 20.3 29.5 16.7 29.5 11.47 8.50 7.40 6.00 8.38 7.82 7.46 8.39 1574 552 923 382

7 19.1 29.5 16.6 29.3 12.1 8.48 6.91 5.95 8.23 7.74 7.43 3.42 1558 551 930 383

8 18.7 29.5 16.6 29.0 11.3 8.28 6.96 5.87 8.10 7.75 7.45 8.37 1567 551 931 381

9 18.5 29.5 16.6 28.9 10.3 8.28 7.00 5.54 7.99 7.73 7.47 8.35 1567 551 931 381




14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 21.2 26.4 17.5 29.4 10.4 8.27 NR 7.13 8.26 8.25 7.83 8.32 1836 596 1098 668

2 20.1 16.4 17.5 29.0 10.9 8.13 NR 5.59 8.26 8.11 7.85 8.24 1850 594 1098 669

3 20.0 26.4 17.4 28.6 10.95 8.66 NR 4.16 8.25 8.03 7.83 8.22 1848 592 1099 670

4 19.8 26.4 17.3 28.2 11.01 8.41 NR 3.54 8.12 8.01 7.82 8.14 1844 592 1099 667

5 26.4 27.7 3.44 8.12 664



Site 8 - Mundubbera


14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16 14/15 15/16


1 21.2 28.1 17.6 28.0 10.56 9.12 9.56 4.4 8.23 7.88 7.77 9.17 1674 667 1065 544

2 21.1 27.5 17.2 27.8 9.98 10.72 9.50 3.84 8.22 7.87 7.78 9.36 1678 667 1065 540

3 21.1 27.2 16.7 27.7 8.66 9.34 8.55 3.58 8.21 7.73 7.65 9.16 1652 669 1067 536

4 20.4 27.1 16.6 27.6 8.24 9.53 8.08 3.56 8.17 7.65 7.54 8.91 1674 666 1069 536

5 16.6 7.85 7.46 1075


paradise dam - lungfish and aquatic ecosystem monitoring · as in previous lungfish surveys,...

Documents